Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    IP breaking links, introducing trailing spaces despite warnings

    [edit]
    BLOCKED, AND BLOCKED AGAIN
    If they resume after the current one-week block expires, a new report can be filed and they get a sit-down for longer still. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Despite three warnings on their Talk page, 2A00:23C4:AA80:E201:34D5:E60E:9C6:247F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) insists on introducing trailing spaces before footnotes. Robby.is.on (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Robby.is.on,
    I see warning notices on their user talk page but nowhere do you explain what they are doing wrong. They just warn them about "disruptive editing" which could be anything. How about forgoing the templates and write out a personal message explaining to the editor what is problematic about the way they are editing? I don't think you can expect them to change until they know what they are doing incorrectly. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: but nowhere do you explain what they are doing wrong I admit I could taken more time to explain the issues in detail, for example like Meters has done since (Thanks, @Meters:!). But in the first warning I did write "Please stop introducing trailing spaces". I also explained all my reverts in edit summaries except one. After half a dozen reverts, the editor could have stopped editing to ask what was wrong with their edits instead of persisting. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    After Meters' kind explanations, they're still at it, now

    And now at 2a00:23c4:aa80:e201:d0f8:4b19:19d0:edd3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), still breaking links by placing commas inside them: [3], [4]. @Liz:, could you have a look, please? Robby.is.on (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And still, from 2A00:23C4:AA80:E201:DC9D:B54A:800B:DC15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [5], [6] Robby.is.on (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What do I need to do to get someone to listen? This is an ongoing problem ([7]) and wasting editor resources ([8]). Robby.is.on (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Liz (or other admins): Please block this IP range. Have a look at Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:AA80:E201::/64. Over 1100 edits since 14 February 2025. Some parts of these contributions are useful, but roughly 90% of them had to be reverted or cleaned up. The most egregious disruptions are the broken links – the IP habitually changes [[Foo]] to [[Foo.]], turning working links into garbage. Another habit of the IP: replacing {{death date and age}} by the text generated by the template, often breaking dmy/mdy date format. Less disruptive, but still annoying and useless: Inserting spaces before <ref>. It looks like these habits have been getting worse lately. The IP has been warned again and again and again and again and again and again etc. etc. for six weeks, but never reacts to any talk page messages and never changes this behavior. Unfortunately, this is a case of WP:ICHY and WP:CIR. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP kept going with the disruptive edits, was warned again, and was blocked for 31 hours. Let's see how it goes. (I wonder who or what is behind that IP range. Why would anyone break dozens of links – I guess around 50, maybe more – in a single edit? Is the IP running a script that moves punctuation into links? Strange.) — Chrisahn (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The vandal came back in full force as soon as the block expired. All edits had to be reverted. Reported at WP:AIV. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked again. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continuously disruptive editing by User623921

    [edit]

    User has previously:

    A previous ANI was made for this user but it ended up being a content dispute resolution for the article Ant Wan instead [108]. User623921 has propped up a stance of battleground editing and gaming the system to assert a specific POV, and deflecting that onto other editors (including myself) throughout the past two weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surayeproject3 (talk • contribs)

    To address point one, I mistakenly restored it. This was also brought up by Shmayo. It was marked as a sandbox when I accidentally restored it, but I immediately reverted to the original version and marked the revert as a mistake.
    Now, regarding the Örebro school shooting, the referenced sources do not mention "Assyrian" at all. They only mention the Syrianska Riksförbundet, yet you inserted the Assyrian name into the article despite my previous corrections. I clearly marked my edits, stating that there was no reference to Assyrians.
    Regarding the Defense of Azakh and every other edit I made, they were solely based on the referenced sources. I urge any administrator to review the sources, as none of them mention anything Assyrian-related, yet Surayeproject3 continues to push the Assyrian name.
    As for the artists, Surayeproject3 already filed a dispute, and the admin ruled in favor of no one.
    Surayeproject3 is accusing me of "gaming the system," even though I am not pushing an Aramean name. I am reverting/editing to "Syriac," as stated in the referenced sources. "Syriac" is considered a middle ground between both names, which is why I am using it, as the sources indicate and for the sake of compromise.
    Additionally, Surayeproject3 has been inconsistent multiple times, going against WP:C2D by changing "Sayfo" to "Assyrian Genocide," which I pointed out and warned him about on his talk page. User623921 (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have closed a dispute at DRN to which User623921 and Surayeproject3 were parties, concerning the article Arameans. DRN does not work on a case that is also pending in another forum. There were two other editors involved in the case at DRN who are not named here. If they wish to reopen the DRN case without the two combatants, they may file a new request here. This is the second case between User623921 and Surayeproject3 to end up here at WP:ANI in two weeks. Does something need to be done to keep these two users from disrupting the development of the encyclopedia? Interaction bans are difficult to administer, but may be less difficult than finding areas to ban these users from. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will respond to all of the new points that have been made since I filed the initial ANI. Please note that I aim to simply state my side of the argument and in no way intend to aggressively or overtly attack or argue with anyone, and I hope that I state all of my points while still going alongside Wikipedia's guidelines. With that said, I will start with User623921's statements.
    I intend for this ANI not to turn into another content dispute, however as they have primarily addressed their response by discussing my previous edit history on several articles, I feel I have to address them individually and that these help to prove my point. For context, the community of Syriac Christians who call themselves "Assyrian", "Chaldean", "Syriac", or "Aramean" are currently in a naming dispute regarding what is the most appropriate name to call themselves, but they are all recognized to be the same people. Throughout the history of English Wikipedia, there have been previous and similar arguments related to the naming dispute, but per WP:COMMONNAME, Assyrian is the default that reflects the community, as well as their history and origins. Additionally, please note that "Syriac people" default redirects to the page for Assyrians, and the Arameans page is dedicated to the ancient Arameans and not the modern Aramean identity, which is reflected in other articles relating to modern Assyrians (though not to delve too much into the now closed DNR). I am open to providing more details about the naming dispute if anyone wishes, but with this being said, allow me to address the edits:
    • Gutersloh - The change from Aramean to Assyrian has been a previous issue for the article. The first time the community was mentioned was in 2011 [109], but then this was changed to Assyrian [110] and Aramean was noted as a common designation for Assyrians in Germany [111]. This was changed to Aramean in December of that year [112] before being reverted back to Assyrian [113], changed the next month by a German IP [114], and in 2013 was changed to "Assyrian/Syriac" [115]. It was changed to Aramean again in 2015 [116], but than I changed it back in 2024 [117] which caused a small dispute with another editor but nothing big. It was changed back to Assyrian in late February [118] and I added more information from the German version of the page earlier this month [119]. Please note that the German page labels the community as "Suryoye" with parentheses (Aramean, Assyrian, Chaldean) to couple all three identities [120]. As you can see, this is not the first time that this dispute has been on the article, but as Assyrian encompasses all three groups, I changed the name while adding more info about the community in the town.
    • Isa Kahraman - Regarding the removal of the Aramean category, that category is used for ancient Arameans, and not for people who identify as Aramean today. The only source that mentions identity or ethnicity is the one linked [121], which labels him as Syriac (the news publication typically uses all the labels together when identifying the community and people).
    • Syrians in Sweden - For this one no mention of Assyrians/Arameans was made until this edit in October of last year [122], but I changed it in January because they're used to represent the same people and it was redundant [123].
    • Al Jazira (caliphal province) - About this article, I don't have access to the source so I can't say what it says about Tur Abdin. However, as will soon be seen with Place name changes in Turkey and two villages in the Tur Abdin area, the people who originate from there have roots to ancient Assyrian history and modern Assyrian identity, while noting that many from there identify as Aramean in diaspora. Plus, the article was linked to the ancient Arameans, so I changed Aramean to Assyrian.
    • Syria - No mention of Tamurlane was made in the article that was sourced where I made my edit, but it did use all of the names and referred to the community as ethnic Assyrians. The fact that Syria has ancient Aramean origins is irrelevant.
    • Place name changes in Turkey - The issue with this article seems to be the name to describe the village names changed by Turkey. It was previously called Assyrian but changed to Aramaic [124] while still noting its inhabitants were ethnic Assyrians. This was reverted [125] but it had the main page for the people written as "Assyrian/Syriac" [126]. As far as I can see, this wasn't changed to "Assyrian/Syriac/Aramean" until 2023 [127] but I changed it back the following year [128]. In any case, the section of the article was previously just Assyrian and noted the various names are used to recognize the same people.
    • Haberli, İdil - This article hasn't existed for long, so it didn't deal with the naming dispute until recently [129]. When I expanded the article, I found quite a few sources that label the community as ethnic Assyrians, and the Assyrian genocide as...well, the Assyrian genocide [130]. However, User623921 made various edits afterwards that only changed the name to "Syriac" or "Aramean" [131] [132] [133] [134] and also removing any mentions of ancient Assyrian history or modern identity. His argument is that the Turkish word "Suryaniler" and "Suryani" translate to "Syriac", however this is not entirely the case and there are many instances where the word is used to mean Assyrian (even by Turkish sources) [135] [136], [137] page 183 of this link, [www.aina.org/books/stgabriel.pdf] pg. 103 of this link, [138]. While there are sources that correlate Suryani with Syriac, it has a greater connection to Assyrian identity and name and therefore I edited the article based on that.
    • Öğündük, İdil - Same as above, see the pasted links in my first ANI post in relation to this article. All sources use the terms interchangeably, but given that Assyrian was used in English and Turkish, I wrote Assyrian
    • Ethnic groups in Europe - When I first edited this article, I removed Aramean [139] because it was redundant and didn't represent two unique peoples. However, this was added back by User623921 a week ago and I was accused of POV [140]. When I re-edited the article I changed the section in "Non-indigenous minorities" on Assyrians to add the various other identifications [141], but User623921 changed this once again [142]. I added this back while expanding the "Indigenous minorities" section [143], and that's where the article stands. Something else to note is that User623921 did not remove the mention of "Chaldean" from the Assyrian section, only "Syriac" and "Aramean" and than linked them together elsewhere. But again, the only edits that were made were coupled with the two terms and nothing else.
    • Örebro school shooting - User623921 is arguing that because the sources of my edits on the Assyrian victim of the massacre mention a federation with the name "Syrianska", that the victim should be labeled as "Syriac-Aramean". However, across the cited sources, I could find no such mention of a federation or an organization with the name that they are stating. The Reuter's source [144] describes the victim as a "Syriac-speaker" and the community as "Syriac-speaking", while the Japan Times source I added [145] names the victim and the community as "Assyrian", while the Assyria TV source [146] is a recording of his funeral. The CBS News source makes no mention of his ethnicity [147], but states they are Orthodox Christians.
    • Shamoun Hanne Haydo - The issue of the name has been previously present on the article for Shamoun Hanne Haydo. When it was first created, he was labeled as Assyrian [148], but was changed to Aramean in late 2009 [149] before being reverted [150] and causing an edit war for the month of October. In November it was changed to "Aramean/Syriac" [151], and it was a back and forth between this dispute in 2010 [152] [153] [154], 2011 [155] [156] [157][158], 2012 [159] [160] [161] [162], 2013 [163] [164] [165] [166] [167], 2014 [168], 2015 [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180], up until the present day in a list of edits so long that I don't have the time to link to all of them. The talk page has the exact same disputes [181], while linking to a source that calls him both Aramean and Assyrian [182]. As you can see, this has been a frustrating back and forth for MANY years now, and up until now, the article did not have any modern sources that went into detail with the subject's legacy. All of the sources I added use all three of the names, but User623921 changed only text that called him an Assyrian and also removed one of the sources that called him an Assyrian (the source dealt with one of his descendants who is currently writing a cookbook, admittedly it may have come off as an advertisement but I can of course change this). All in all, User623921 continued the previous pattern of disruptive editing that this article has seen since it was created by simply changing the name without any constructive edits to the article.
    • Regarding the naming of Seyfo - The common name for the events of 1915 is "Assyrian genocide". After having just done a search on Google, the number of results that appear for "Assyrian genocide" is 1,620,000 for a regular search, and 278 for a search in the news tab. Meanwhile, the number of results that appear for "Seyfo" and "Sayfo" is 363,000 for a regular search respectively, as well as 30 and 27 news results respectively. Additionally, the article for the topic itself was only renamed to Seyfo in late 2020 without an RM procedure, making it a controversial move [183]. Noting that Google Scholar was also mentioned in the linked talk page post, we see 1,280 results for "Sayfo" [184], 659 for "Seyfo" [185], and 16,500 for "Assyrian genocide" [186]. Since "Assyrian genocide" is the more common term in English, this is what I have used when linking to the article.
    • I haven't researched Sodertalje mafia and Ignatius Aphrem II in depth yet to comment on them, but Sodertalje mafia has sources referring to it as an Assyrian/Syriac mafia while Ignatius Aphrem II has previously commented on distancing the name debate from the church and being united as one "Suryoye". I can make a more detailed clarification later if need be.
    As you can see, in all of the edits that User623921 has linked, I had a clear and viable reason for changing the name Aramean and Syriac to Assyrian while noting that previous disputes have hindered and upset these articles for so long that they were never expanded until recent edits, and even after that, the only actions that they made on any of them was changing the name "Assyrian" to "Syriac", and sometimes linking to the ancient Arameans page. Because I was outright accused of edit warring and disruptive editing, I personally focused on expanding these articles and found many sources that affirmed the Assyrian identity and origins of article subjects or edits, and noting that the people who call themselves "Aramean", "Assyrian", "Syriac", or "Chaldean" are one and the same. I am confident, therefore, that as opposed to User623921 stating that I am pushing an Assyrian POV, they are pushing a Syriac-linked-to-Aramean POV that is acting disruptively on many of these articles.
    Now to briefly address @Robert McClenon's points. I should mention that while this is the second time an issue between myself and User623921 has appeared at the ANI, it was not filed by either of us. Another user who was involved in the DRN for Arameans filed it after noticing the edit warring that User623921 was engaged in, as well as with the restoration of the forks, see this link here [187]. This is the same ANI I mentioned in my first post. They also filed a sockpuppet investigation against them for editing patterns from another account on one of the same articles mentioned (although it was determined they were unrelated) [188], and they also filed another sockpuppet investigation into the fourth user of the DRN, Kivercik (which is as of this moment still open - I noticed it around the time it was filed and added some of my own points that I felt were worth mentioning) [189]. As you can see, this level of disruptive editing has been noticed by and has impacted other editors besides just myself, which is partly what prompted me to file another ANI.
    By the way @Robert McClenon, do you happen to be able to perform CheckUser or know of a user who can? I previously emailed the English Wikipedia's CheckUser email about this issue, but I haven't gotten a response and it appears I need to address my concerns sooner than later. If you can guide me in the right direction on this, I'd appreciate it. Surayeproject3 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Surayeproject3 - The way to request CheckUser investigation is to file a Sockpuppet Investigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Surayeproject3, regarding changing from "Sayfo" to "Assyrian Genocide", please stop doing that: we already have consensus for the appropriate title of that article, which is Sayfo. This is a Featured Article - it's been under a lot of scrutiny, so that's a pretty strong consensus. -- asilvering (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering Do you know where I can see the consensus for the appropriate title, if it's not the already linked renaming discussion? I can imagine it may have been chosen during the discussion to make Sayfo a featured article, but I haven't come across it yet. Otherwise, if it's the consensus for the appropriate label, I will stop changing that text. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of related discussions if you look at the talk page archives. Following the links in the most recent move request will get you to a handful of them without having to dig too hard, but buidhe's comment there explains the reasoning pretty thoroughly. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to point out the "common name" argument you are holding against Sayfo:
    A google search for Assyrian genocide does not give 1.6m results, simply because it is targeting any result that is mentioning the word "assyrian" and "genocide" separately in the same page. You've got to quote the word so it literally becomes "(the) ASSYRIAN GENOCIDE", and on a standard google search this gives 77 900 results.
    Sayfo gives 225 000 results and Seyfo gives 389 000.
    Same thing applies to google scholar, "Assyrian genocide" gives 563 results.
    Sayfo gives 1280 results and Seyfo gives 659 results. User623921 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Making a reply to this as it's still currently the case that User623921 is changing article content to remove mentions or links to Assyrians, most recently on the article Beth Kustan, Midyat, even after expanding it's content: compared to previously, there are now more sources that affirm the village's Assyrian identity (including the Turkish word Suryaniler), and noting again that "Syriac people" redirects to Assyrians.
    My recent edits - [190] [191] [192] [193]
    User's edits - [194] [195] [196] [197] Surayeproject3 (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @User623921, you need to stop changing the terms in that article. You're edit-warring, and you'll be blocked if you continue. There's an open conversation on the talk page - discuss your edits there, not in repeated edit summaries. -- asilvering (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the edit summaries of relevant pages, Surayeproject3 goes against the established fact that the population is referred to as Syriac. Please see the sources yourself, it's literally saying "speaking of the Syriac population". Mugsalot also changed it to Syriac but Surayeproject3 goes against it. User623921 (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering i also want to point out that the open conversations on the talk page are being ignored or not answered by Surayeproject3, @Surayeproject3 can you answer the latest reply... User623921 (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What User623921 seems to be doing is taking statements that others say in relation to his arguments for how things should be on Wikipedia, and than apply that as if it's a final consensus and say on his editing. This has occurred in various instances:
    • When me and User* were debating over the ethnicity for Ricky Rich, I suggested leaving it as Assyrian/Syriac because it factored both identities we were arguing for [198]. User* seems to have taken this to mean that "Syriac" is by default the middle ground and started changing other pages [199] [200] for the artists Gaboro and Ant Wan
    • On the article Beth Kustan, Midyat, another editor sorted the page's content and happened to mention that "The sources do overwhelmingly use "Syriac"" [201]. He has since taken this as if it's a final consensus that other articles, if not all, should say Syriac instead of Assyrian to refer to the same people, even if not directly on Assyrian villages in Turkey. See these [202][203][204][205][206][207] and other examples can be found on his edit history. These instances occurred both before and after I expanded these articles.
    • User* seems to also be arguing that because an outside organization named "Syrianska Riksforbundent" represents the community as Arameans (with the label Syriac applied) through certain terminology, than by default it means that a subject should be represented under the Syriac-Aramean label. This is in some of his talk page posts but see here [208][209][210][211]. I'm mentioning this because User* is throwing in the organization in edits on articles that aren't even related to it, only being used in arguments for the name.
    User* is continuously assuming that there is consensus on these topics without broader agreement or input, violating Wikipedia's need for not only just consensus, but also a neutral point of view. It has continuously appeared that User* is also cherry picking select sources and statements in forums and present those to support his side of editing. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    to answer point one: Ricky Rich was referred to as Syriac, I tried getting Aramean, you tried Assyrian, neither one got their opinions, thus Syriac was seen as the most middle ground, as this is what all relevant sources in Sweden state, same goes for the other artists Gaboro and Ant Wan, who actually are both referenced and known to be Aramean, yet Ant Wan was left without ethnicity after a comment from a admin, and well, Gaboro is literally representing his ethnicity on his mask, thus making it into the lead per MOSBIO.
    --
    About Beth Kustan, you're the one not seeming to understand that the references and sources overwhelmingly use Syriac, not Assyrian. The censunse of the population explicitly mention a "SYRIAC POPULATION", you are trying to push the Assyrian name on a population that is described as Syriacs. For example, the two references about the population on Beth Kustan writes the following:
    "Helmut Ritter provides figures for the number of families and persons in all the villages (43 in all) which had a Syrian Orthodox population." - note that he writes this and references this: "H Ritter, Turoyo, die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen der Tur Abdin" (literally says Syriac Christians).
    the other reference on the article writes the following: "The Beth Qustan village was a flourishing rural center, part of the food basket of the Fertile Crescent at the turn of the 20th century, with approximately 200 families living in the village; however, in 2017, only an estimated 20 families remained inhabitants of Beth Qustan. The Qusneans still speak a specific dialect of Neo-Aramaic, which is better known to the community as Turoyo, the language of Tur ‘Abdin. Figure 2 is a picture of the center of the Beth Qustan village."
    there is no mention about a Assyrian population other than Syriac Christians on the two references in the lead.
    the third reference to the population, in the history section writes the following: "The list only deals with the Syriac population"
    --
    What I am using the organization for is as a source to describe what Syrian means in Sweden, we could very well also use a study by Atto, read this: "A Syrian is a Suryoyo who first rejects the designation Assyrier and by doing so any links to an Assyrian past. Among the Syrianer in Sweden, especially people who are active in secular organizations and many of the clergymen, it is stated that the ‘amo Suryoyo has Aramean roots." [212]
    You're accusing me for POV, yet I am not even pushing POV, which I am assuming you're thinking to be Aramean, I am literally seeking middle ground at Syriac, since it redirects to Assyrians and is the most accepted name amongst all groups, besides, Syriac is what the sources state. User623921 (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User* is continuously assuming that there is consensus on these topics without broader agreement or input yes, this appears pretty clear to me. @User623921, your edits have been challenged, so you need to seek consensus for them. Yes, that does mean every time. If you want a consensus that applies across multiple articles, you have to get that consensus. I recommend starting with a discussion on Assyrian people, as @Robert McClenon suggests as a possibility below. An RFC may be a good idea at some point, once you've come up with a clear and neutral question to ask. You may first want to take various sources to WP:RSN. What you cannot do is get a local consensus on one article and then apply it across all kinds of other articles, over other editors' objections. If an experienced editor were doing this, I would be calling for a topic ban. Since you are a relatively inexperienced editor, instead I strongly suggest editing somewhere else for a while, so you can get experience with wikipedia editing about something you feel less strongly about. Personally, I can recommend WP:BOOKS topics. You'll never run out of notable books to write about, and it takes a pretty contentious book to get real arguments going. -- asilvering (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly do it on the villages, since they all use same sources for the population. But sure, I'll keep this in mind, sorry. User623921 (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unarchiving the discussion because User* (now named Wlaak) is going against the previous discussions of the ANI and is continuing to apply a pre-conceived consensus on one article onto several other articles on Assyrian/Syriac villages in southeastern Turkey. This is despite no consensus being present for this at all, and still categorically removing any mentions of Assyrians or sources that use the name. They have done this on the following articles:
    Additionally, after expanding the article for Södertälje mafia [236], leaving Assyrian/Syriac as a compromise, he went ahead and changed only the ethnicity portion [237][238]. After noticing a direct callout on Jimmy Durmaz [239], I added some more sources for the ethnicity and also restructured the article with expansion [240], only for him to change (yet again) only the ethnicity and revert my previous edits [241][242]. For this article, he added a Youtube video as a source but I couldn't retrace it to anywhere outside of that one video.
    On the article for Beth Kustan, the consensus was to keep the article stating the people "Syriac" while linking to the page for Assyrians, corresponding with the redirect and the previous discussion in the ANI. That was for the one article only. Wlaak has applied this to 23 articles just today consecutively without prior input, consensus, or starting discussions. Surayeproject3 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ok so for all the villages, it's really simple: all if not the big majority of the sources that spoke of the population wrote of a Syriac population, since when do you need a consensus to edit anything? pretty sure you're performing dozens of edits a day without any consensus.
    it's not like i am restructuring entire articles, i am literally seeing the sources and correcting what is stated about them... the linkage to Assyrian people as well as the category of Assyrian communities in Turkey are still there!
    regarding the Södertälje maffia, there was no source stating they were Assyrian, rather on the Swedish page, it is only stated Syriac with a citation to a newspaper in Sweden confirming it.
    regarding Jimmy Durmaz, you wanted to change the referenced source to apply to Assyrian, not correct what was stated. the source had been stable for a year/months, however it contradicted the source, it was stated in the source he is Aramean, in the Wiki article it said Assyrian, I corrected it, you then reverted, I then said that the source does not support what you are writing, and you then went ahead and substituted a stable source to get your Assyrian name on the article.
    speaking of "no-consensus", you changed these without reaching consensus:
    • Midyat Guest House, a newly created article where you only changed the Aramean name to Assyrian, seems as you also tried to get "Assyrian/Syriac" in, and by your logic, that consensus was only reached in one article, now you are spreading it to other. [243]
    • again Midyat Guest House, you tried applying Assyrian culture category, with no consensus or mention of Assyrian. [244]
    • on Düzgeçit, Midyat you added Historic Assyrian communities in Iraq. [245]
    for dialects, you put in a infobox about a people... for languages... with no consensus.
    • you did so Heretvin as well and this time deleting Chaldean Catholics [253]
    • you also did it on the language, whos speakers would greatly disagree with you on and disagree with you if you tried to get a consensus, Turoyo [255]
    doesn't stop there, you also did so on Churches!
    • you also did so on the most controversial one, whos Church has officially stated they are not Assyrians and stated they are Syriacs, descendants of Arameans, the Syriac Orthodox Church [262] i also want to note that on this edit, you were reverted by CF-501 Falcon who said it is "not about Assyrians, refrain from pushing POV", yet you implemented this POV on all other Churches after the Syriac Orthodox Church.
    • you also did so on the Chaldean Catholic Church [263], who the big majority speak of being ethnic Chaldeans, you proposed to delete the Chaldean Catholics article and merge it with the Church, you then labeled the Chaldean Catholic Church as being native Assyrians and put the infobox about Assyrians, completely unrelated to faith and religion to it.
    i could keep going and bring up more example where you've put changed the article, not corrected what's stated about sources but you get my points with the examples of the languages and Churches, the difference between us here is that i am only correcting what is stated on the article in contrast to the source, while you are literally inputting a Assyrian POV infobox on all articles, UNRELATED articles, a language? a Church? they've been stable for years, and you're now injecting a Assyrian infobox on them all? even though some have explicitly said they are not Assyrian, such as the Syriac Orthodox Church, see source.
    and yes, I am now going under the name Wlaak, thought it would be more personal/easy to refer to me than User....
    thanks Wlaak (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering said "...your edits have been challenged, so you need to seek consensus for them. Yes, that does mean every time. If you want a consensus that applies across multiple articles, you have to get that consensus." You did not achieve this consensus for Assyrian villages in Turkey prior to editing them, nor are you making any substantial edits to expand on article content. This is instead extremely similar to your previous patterns of editing despite you replying "I mostly do it on the villages, since they all use same sources for the population. But sure, I'll keep this in mind, sorry." The difference between me writing "Assyrian/Syriac" is that I have written it on two articles, elsewhere I'd just say Assyrian. You wrote it on 23.
    Most of the edits you've linked are for an infobox, the point of an infobox is to be put on articles that discuss Assyrians. And yes, that includes our churches, dialects of Neo-Aramaic, culture, etc. A source from Ephrem Barsoum or your personal experiences with Syriac Catholics doesn't change that; the article literally has the Assyrian people template at the bottom of the page. The Chaldean Catholic point is irrelevant either, I requested a merge all the way back in December after making a comment and seeing others in support, nobody objected. I am not about to justify edits for articles that point black mention Assyrian history or people, and you are still categorically removing mentions of Assyrians on these articles. Surayeproject3 (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    okay, i must have forgotten that. doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you either, your edits have been also been challenged, yet you pushed your edits, that statements refers to anyone whos edits have been challenged. your edit about the Church was challenged, yet you proceeded with putting the infoboxes, and no, a Church is not about a series of Assyrians, like CF-501 Falcon said it is "not about Assyrians, refrain from pushing POV".
    its not irrelevant, did you seek consensus for categorizing them as Assyrians after the merge? did you seek consensus for the infoboxes on the Churches and the languages?
    "I am not about to justify edits for articles that point black mention Assyrian history or people" — your edits have been challenged, people don't agree with them, you are not correcting anything, you are changing the articles. same logic applied to the articles point black mention a Syriac population for the villages... your logic is contradicting yourself.
    i am not done on the villages, i will be expanding them, i was starting off changing what was stated by the sources, which was incorrect and contradicting the sources.
    i am not removing mentions of Assyrians from articles that have sources supported to be Assyrian, i am leaving the linkage to Assyrian people as well as the Assyrian categorizations. you, on the other hand, do remove mentions of Arameans and Syriacs, as shown in a warning on your talk page, despite sources stating Aramean, one example is the other day when you reverted Jimmy Durmaz to Assyrian, even though the source stated Aramean and was corrected.
    this is not a one way dispute, you are doing the same things you are accusing others of. Wlaak (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i also came to realize after scrolling down this page that you also have a open dispute against Kivercik, who also have challenged your edits, unhappy with how you have pushed the Assyrian name and reaching no consensus. Wlaak (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    three people other than me is agreeing with you pushing POV, if you'd scroll further down the ANI page. @Black Kite they also brought up the most problematic issue here, in regards to what i have corrected in the villages, the citations don't mention Assyrian, yet you push for a Assyrian name upon them, every citation uses Syriac population and people.
    (sorry for ping, Black Kite) Wlaak (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    you are expanind the article, its great, however, while doing so, you are changing the already established terms for the population to Assyrian. Suryaniler means Syriacs, please see the Oxford dictionary of the Turkish language. [265] User623921 (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive Editing and POV by Surayeproject3

    [edit]

    Surayeproject3 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly attempted to push a POV favoring the Assyrian name, contradicting the sources. I have tried to revert or change his edits to reflect the more accurate term used in the referenced sources, which is "Syriac."

    About Gütersloh: Surayeproject3, without providing an edit summary, changed the Aramean name to his preferred term, "Assyrian." [266]

    About Isa Kahraman: Surayeproject3 edited the article without a summary or consensus and removed the Aramean category. [267]

    About Syrians in Sweden: Surayeproject3 altered the article, which had remained stable for nearly a month, to refer only to "Assyrian," removing any mention of Arameans. [268]

    About Al-Jazira (caliphal province): Surayeproject3 modified the article, which had been stable for over a month, changing "Aramean" to "Assyrian" and deleting the Aramean mention. He did this without adding any new references or providing an edit summary. [269]

    About Syria: Surayeproject3 removed the phrase "Assyrian and Aramean population," replacing it with only "Assyrian," despite the fact that the article referred to the Middle Ages in Syria, which is known for its Aramean origins. [270]

    About the Södertälje mafia: Surayeproject3 changed "Syriac-Aramaic" to "Assyrian," contradicting the available sources. The article had remained stable for more than two months. [271]

    About Place name changes in Turkey: Surayeproject3 altered "Assyrian/Syriac/Aramean" to only "Assyrian," even though the article had been stable for over two months. [272]

    About Haberli, İdil: Surayeproject3 kept fighting me over the correct population name. The referenced censuses and sources stated "Syriacs," but he repeatedly reverted the article to say "Assyrian." [273]

    About Ignatius Aphrem II: Surayeproject3 replaced "Aramean" with "Assyrian," even though the source explicitly stated "Aramean" and Ignatius Aphrem II himself identifies strongly with his Aramean heritage. [274]

    About Ethnic groups in Europe: Surayeproject3 removed "Aramean" from the article, keeping only "Assyrian." [275]

    About the Örebro school shooting: Surayeproject3 described the casualty victim as "Assyrian" and referred to the federation in Örebro as "Assyrian," even though the referenced sources clearly stated the victim was "Syriac" and that the federation was "Syrianska Riksförbundet," a Syriac-Aramaic organization. [276]

    About Öğündük, İdil: Surayeproject3 fought me over the name of the population, trying to push the Assyrian name despite sources and censuses explicitly mentioning a "Syriac" population. [277]

    About Shamoun Hanne Haydo: Surayeproject3 attempted to label him as "Assyrian," despite all sources [278][279] stating that he was a Syriac folk hero. [280]

    Surayeproject3 also seems to label anything related to Sayfo as the "Assyrian Genocide," despite there being a speedy renaming request to change the categories from "Assyrian" to "Sayfo" for consistency with the main article and WP:C2D. I have also warned him about this on his talk page. [281]

    With all this said, it seems that sources are being contradicted in order for him to push his POV and have the Assyrian name displayed. His user talk page even states that he wants to "increase the knowledge, visibility, and representation of the Assyrian people, which includes those identifying as Chaldean or Syriac-Aramean."

    I have repeatedly tried to fight this vandalism, POV pushing, and contradiction of sources, but it does not seem to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User623921 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)<diffs>[reply]

    Done. Nathannah • 📮 16:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! ☩ (Babysharkboss2) 16:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you two realize that you have offered over 130 diffs for editors/admins to review? This is excessive and no one is going to put in the time required to evaluate all of this material.
    Could you briefly, in a few sentences, summarize the basis of your disagreement and the policy-based disruption you are claiming is happening by the other party? Otherwise, I think this complaint will just be archived with no action taken. Be concise, not exhaustive. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Liz - This is a naming and splitting dispute. The question is about a group of Syriac Christians, and whether they should all be called Assyrians or whether there is a separate ethnic group who are called Arameans. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the content dispute. I haven't tried to determine what the conduct issues are. I was trying to mediate the content dispute before these reports were filed, and my objective was first to determine what the content dispute was so that we could ignore the conduct issues. But here we are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn’t really call it a dispute over ethnicity, but rather a matter of modern Arameans having WP:NOTABILITY and, in accordance with WP:NPOV, deserving their own article. This has been a topic of discussion for decades, as their identity is different from that of the Assyrians, with a unique historical claim, continuity, literature, traditions, and more. User623921 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that my posts appear excessive, but I am just detailing them so that anyone who may wish to review can better understand my point. I'll summarize the above, hopefully in a more concise manner.
    User623921 has taken a stance on battleground editing and gaming the system to advocate for a certain POV while deflecting this onto other editors involved, including myself. So far, they have attempted to restore forks made by blocked users on the page Arameans, improperly explained removal of various football teams from List of Assyrian football teams in Sweden, and they have also previously been warned for edit-warring and investigated for sockpuppetry. The biggest disruption they've made is change various amounts of text on articles from "Assyrian" to "Syriac/Aramean"; they have listed examples where I've done the same thing vice versa, but in my recent post, I explained that I expanded those articles with sources or content while User623921 only made edits to change the name again or remove mentions of Assyrians. This has impacted all the articles they listed and some more, and has been disruptive to more editors besides just myself. In my last paragraph, I mentioned that I emailed English Wikipedia's CheckUser email about this issue, but I have not yet received a response and it appears that sooner than later I should get my points across to one of them.
    I hope that this is much more concise, quick, and easy to follow. If more details are needed, please refer to my above posts. Surayeproject3 (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Surayeproject3, who do you think is a sockpuppet of whom? -- asilvering (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering After re-evaluating I had greater suspicion of meatpuppetry than sockpuppetry, so maybe CheckUser is not the best for this situation. I noticed you were on the Wikimedia Discord from your user profile, and given the urgency I joined it and just sent you a message, if you're able to check. Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Surayeproject3 has consistently engaged in name-based POV editing across a wide range of articles, often replacing terms like "Aramean" or "Syriac" with "Assyrian"—even when the sources cited in those articles clearly use the original terminology. These changes are frequently made without edit summaries, consensus, or the addition of new sources, and they’ve disrupted articles that had remained stable for long periods.
    This behavior isn't isolated to one or two pages; it's a pattern that spans many articles, from biographical entries to discussions of historical regions, modern communities, and even the Sayfo genocide. In many of these edits, references to Aramean or Syriac identity have been either downplayed or removed outright in favor of an Assyrian framing. Surayeproject3 also appears to apply the label "Assyrian" to people or organizations that are clearly described in sources as "Syriac" or "Aramean."
    Their user page openly states an intent to increase the visibility of the Assyrian name, including for those who identify as Chaldean or Syriac-Aramean. This self-declared mission has translated into a persistent editing approach that often overrides or misrepresents cited material to fit that narrative. The issue has led to repeated reversions, edit conflicts, and broader disruption to other editors working on these topics. User623921 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @User623921, I really quite strongly advise you to avoid using LLMs at all on Wikipedia, but especially in discussions about conduct and policy. LLMs do not understand Wikipedia. You are harming your credibility and everyone else's ability to assume good faith. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    im Sorry, I was not doing so for them to write my responses for me but rather fix grammar etc. Ill make sure to not use them going forward. User623921 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. Don't worry about grammar too much. Authentic mistakes are better than staid silicon perfection. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:User623921 - Use the grammar checker to check grammar. Using an LLM to check grammar is like using a jackhammer to drive finishing nails. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @User623921, vandalism has a pretty specific meaning, and this does not meet that bar. See WP:VANDAL. I don't see any indication whatsoever that @Surayeproject3 is a vandal. -- asilvering (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealing with the Content Dispute

    [edit]

    This dispute, like many cases at WP:ANI, consists of an underlying content dispute and conduct issues. We should work to start resolving the content dispute while the conduct is dealt with. The underlying content issue appears to be whether there are a distinct ethnic group at the present known as Aramean people, who are not the same as the Assyrian people and should be the subject of a separate article.

    Another DRN request has just been filed about Arameans. The existing article Arameans is about the ancient Arameans, and is probably not really part of the dispute. However, I don't think that DRN is the right forum for the content dispute, because a consensus process is needed to decide whether to create the new article, and DRN would probably conclude that a consensus process is needed. I see three possible routes to a consensus decision on whether a separate article is in order:

    Which consensus process should we use? Then the community can decide whether there still are conduct issues, or whether they will subside when a consensus content process is pending. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert McClenon I support option 1. This is ultimately a debate as to whether the umbrella term (Assyrian) should be divided into separate articles. I'm not an administrator so apologies if it is not my place to comment. Mugsalot (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I support option 2. It’s the most neutral option and the one that fits best with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Arameans have tried for decades to get their own article, but it keeps getting blocked by opposing Assyrians, even though Arameans meet all the necessary guidelines, like WP:NOTABILITY.
    Have a look at the Dutch and German Wikipedia pages. They are good examples of how two separate articles can work just fine.
    Check my comment proving Aramean notability here.
    I also want to quote what Sorabino said on Archive 14 of the Assyrian talk page: "It is quite clear that modern Arameans do not want to be put under Assyrian "umbrella" (as you have put it), and it is my impression that large section of academic community is favoring modern Aramean self-identification. Besides that, the very notion of any "umbrella" term for all Syriac Christians from the Near East became practically inapplicable on formal grounds, since 2014, when Israel officially recognized Arameans in Israel as a distinctive community."
    I also want to refer to what TurboSuperA+ said: "First of all, Wikipedia is not a court of justice or arbiter of what exists, we are not here to decide what those who call themselves Arameans today really are."
    I, and I'm sure the other participant, Kivercik, involved in the previous dispute, can most likely work together on an Aramean people draft. And like you said, if anyone contests its notability, they can nominate it for deletion. User623921 (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I support option 3. I feel like options 1 and 2 are basically affirming the other side of the argument and allowing them to create a separate article without a formalized consensus on if it's even necessary. As I and the other Assyrian editor noted in the first DRN, previous forks have been made for the group identifying as Aramean, and they have basically the exact same aspects of their culture and history. The same ethnic group does not need to have multiple pages about its identity, especially when it has previously been the focal point of edit warring and various disruptions in the past. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Surayeproject3, no one needs consensus to make an article, unless there has already been consensus to delete that article. Is there a previous deletion discussion available? -- asilvering (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to a deletion discussion, there was a WikiProject that originally existed called WikiProject Aramea, however I requested a deletion back in September because it was created by socks and blocked accounts [282]. I also noted that it had the exact same layout and several articles that fit under the scope of WP:WikiProject Assyria, and this is something that User* has previously suggested that "there are people working on" from this discussion (corresponding with the idea of potential meatpuppetry I mentioned to you as well) [283]. For articles, there was previously an article Syriac Orthodox Christians in the Middle East, which was eventually merged into the article for the Syriac Orthodox Church [284] (the discussion uses all the names, btw), and the article Syriac people also had similar content and was eventually merged into Assyrian people [285] [286].
    I also suggest comparing the previous forks from blocked editors (this can be found in my first point of the whole discussion) with the article for the ancient Arameans and Assyrian people, as well as this former version of Syriac people [287]. Because there is so much overlap between these variations and the continuous disputes and edit warring that has been caused by them, it's not only unnecessary to create a new article but it will cause much more disruption from its creation. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon was also one of the commenters of the WikiProject deletion request from the looks of it. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I voted to Delete the WikiProject because it was stillborn. Most of the work of a WikiProject is done on its talk page, and no one had posted to the talk page of the project, so the project never had any activity. I was not voting on whether reliable sources discuss the existence of a modern Aramean people who are distinct from the modern Assyrian people. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I restore the WikiProject? Now that i am active on here and might invite some people that have contributed to Aramean related contents. @Kivercik would you be down to have a WikiProject? For structure and communication? User623921 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that's precedent you might want to point to in an AfD, but it's not a discussion specifically about Aramean people, so the same thing I've said above to @User623921 about a local consensus not applying to similar topics applies here as far as I can tell. There's nothing preventing anyone from making Draft:Aramean people and putting it through AfC for a neutral check, and there wouldn't be anything preventing you from taking that article to AfD once that had occurred. -- asilvering (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Surayeproject3 your arguments that it will be a fork based on previous attempts should not really matter when trying to create a Aramean people page, there are enough differences between the modern Arameans and modern Assyrians for it to not be a fork. And, if you're really against a Aramean article, you are free to challange the notability of modern Arameans, but until then, as it stands, modern Arameans meet the notability criteria for its own article.
    @Asilvering since there is nothing stopping one from creating a Aramean people draft, is it possible for me to start working on it? And if so, what was the purpose of the 3 options for consensus, should option 2 therefore not be the naturally chosen one? It also seems to be the easiest one to work with instead of yet another discussion in Assyrian people page or a RfC, since we already have had multiple of those. Nothing seems to be stopping one from creating:
    User623921 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in my opinion as someone who is trying to help get this dispute to a reasonable conclusion, creating the draft is the simplest answer, and you're welcome to do so. But if I were in your position, namely the position of someone actually intending to write the content, that sure isn't the option I'd try first. I would start by expanding the relevant section on Assyrian people using the best possible sources, then go for #1 in the list of options. #2 is pretty high-risk. You could spend a lot of time and effort on a well-crafted draft and then have an AfD rule that it should be deleted. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering User* already made the draft [288]. Also note that 10 minutes after, User:Kivercik added similar content to this previous fork [289], so this makes me more skeptical of potential meatpuppetry and also ties back to my point on the consensus issue from earlier today. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i have been inactive for the past hours on wikipedia, he may have found it because of the tag i did, i dont know. but please, stop with these accusations and stop always dragging me into accusations, both you and shmayo have tried it before but were dismissed.
    i will delete the fork he published. User623921 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ah okay, i understand. perhaps going for option 1 might be smarter, but it might also get denied a split. would there be some kind of admin intervention in that case? because from previous experience and from what i have seen, i already know Surayeproject3, Shmayo (been rejecting anything Aramean related for decades) and Mugsalot will be against it and it will just be words against words... User623921 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There would not be admin intervention unless someone involved in the dispute does something that requires admin action - that is, there would need to be a conduct issue in play as well. As for the rest, this is precisely why I have advised you to work elsewhere on Wikipedia until you have more experience with content disputes in general. They are indeed words against words; and experienced editors tend to be better at choosing the most effective words. -- asilvering (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    asilvering, it most definitely was "specifically about Aramean people". The content of the old "Syriac people" article linked to above, is basically what is asked to be restored here, see parts of this this or this. "Aramean-Syriac people" was actually protected until last year (protection removed as there were "no disruption to related topics in a long time"). Shmayo (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shmayo, you haven't linked to a consensus discussion about Aramean people, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. -- asilvering (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the old Syriac people article is 16 years old and you are using it as a argument against a Aramean article page? it will be nothing like it, just looking at it i can see how inadequate and very poorly written/structured and content wise.
    we are not asking to restore it, we are asking to create a Aramean people page per WP:NOTABILITY. User623921 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    asilvering, the deletion discussion for "Aramean-Syriac people" is found here here. There was also another discussion for a split here.Shmayo (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I would say that both of those are far too old to be useful. Our notability guidelines have changed significantly since then, and furthermore the general trend in history over the past two decades has been towards greater acknowledgement of various minority groups, so we have significant grounds to believe that a new consensus needs to be established. -- asilvering (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering What about this deletion endorsion? [290] About 10 years old but it was reviewed 6 years after the original deletion of the article, noting that such an article creation was more politically charged than about representation and that many who advocated for separation were socks or blocked accounts. Surayeproject3 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a 11 year old review. It seems that you are trying everything in your power to be against a Aramean people article, I am genuinely curios as to why? I am pretty sure this is POV in favor of not having any other identity than your preferred Assyrian one on WikiPedia. User623921 (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @User623921, you don't need to respond to everything in the discussion here. Just a tip. -- asilvering (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that one is still old, @Surayeproject3, but in that one @Future Perfect at Sunrise gave a very clear summary of the problem, along with a clear suggestion: fix the parent article. Since I more or less suggested doing that with I would start by expanding the relevant section on Assyrian people using the best possible sources, then go for #1 in the list of options., I imagine that the encouragement to fix the parent article was not taken up, and so I expect FP still holds that opinion. And so long as "fix the parent article" is not done, it certainly looks like any consensus discussion would end there. -- asilvering (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering Hey again, hope you're doing well. Since the ANI has died down a bit, I wanted to respond and say that I think that expanding the current Assyrian people article is a great first step to resolving the issue. However, I'd like to know if there are any sections in particular that could use editing to better account for the various identities and diverse history/culture of the people. If you have any suggestions, please let me know!
    By the way, Happy Kha'b Nissan and Assyrian New Year to everyone. April 1st is a traditional celebration for us and we are celebrating it today! Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't be enough to simply write more about each identity, because doing so would also require expanding on the Chaldean identity, their historical claims, as well as the Arameans historical claim. To be honest, the article should be renamed to what it was before: Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac-Aramean, just like the Swedish Wikipedia has done. Wlaak (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Surayeproject3, I've been doing my best to avoid forming an opinion on the content so I don't have to recuse myself from taking any necessary admin actions, so I don't have much in the way of specific content suggestions, but looking around at related articles it seems to me that Terms for Syriac Christians already covers most of this issue? So my general suggestion would be for participants in this discussion to work on that one first, since it's more in-depth, and then see what might need to be carried over to Assyrian people. Right now, the Assyrian people article states Syriac Christians of the Middle East and diaspora employ different terms for self-identification based on conflicting beliefs in the origin and identity of their respective communities. Regardless of what reliable sources say about the subject, given the fact that this content dispute exists in the first place, it's clear that this sentence is insufficient. Even if it's found that reliable sources overwhelmingly support "your side" of this dispute and the position held by User623921 etc is hopelessly WP:FRINGE, the article doesn't do a good job at present of explaining that the dispute exists, let alone why people care so deeply about it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i just came to realize that for option 1, a split discussion would be more fitting in the current Aramean article, as it only deals with ancient Arameans, not modern. the current Assyrian people page only has three sentences about Arameans, there is not much to split there. User623921 (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    Wikihounding actions by User:Remsense

    [edit]

    This user has been making major edits to Wikipedia pages, especially those pertaining to Chinese military history, in an attempt to "enforce" the Wikipedia "rules". He has reverted my (and other users') constructive edits by claiming that they go against the rules of Wikipedia. I do not believe that my edits are explicitly breaking any rules, only that they are contradicting what this user's own interpretation of the Wikipedia rules entail. Most recently I attempted to make a constructive edit to the First Sino-Japanese War page to make it more consistent with other Wikipedia pages, to which the user quickly reverted. When I tried to confront the user on this, they decided to go to my own account's talk page and comment on another user's post on that page to denounce me personally. As such I feel as if this was an action of wikihounding, as the user went out of their way to harass my account personally, and I feel that this user should be dealt with accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkNightingale175 (talk • contribs)

    • Comment Please notify the subject (which, by the way, you'd be looking for Remsense (talk · contribs) rather than [[User/Remsense]]) and also please sign your complaint. Furthermore you'd need to provide diffs demonstrating that Remsense was, in some way, systematically misinterpreting Wikipedia policy with regard to Chinese military history in order for this complaint to be actionable. I'd caution you that anything to do with 20th and 21st century Chinese history is about as fraught as you're likely to find on Wikipedia outside of official CTOPs and, as such, it is sometimes a bit of a challenging space to edit within. I do regularly participate in that area and would say I'd be quite surprised if Remsense was actually misinterpreting policy here as they're usually pretty good at that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Not engaging with this one unless someone else has questions they want to ask. AFAIK, they don't know how their edits went against any rules because they don't care to know any rules—as they were linked to them, and the issue with their edits was explicitly outlined for them. FWIW, infantile vandalism of the kind we generally only see from middle school IPs is well worth denouncing when it inexplicably gets emitted by an established editor. It's much easier to do right by the rules when articles you don't care about for whatever reason seemingly aren't protected by rules at all.) Remsense ‥ 论 19:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding to this, I ran the Editor Interaction Analyser and the picture it paints absolutely is not consistent with the wikihounding accusation. [291] I don't think there's even smoke here, let alone a fire. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Diff/1264583054 Special:Diff/1283025131 Talk:First Sino-Japanese War#Infobox flags — I am a bit confused, Remsense. Do you want the infobox flags or not? Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • In the hopes of getting them to stop trying to get edits in edgewise one day, I've adopted a 100% WP:BMB tact with BlueDIAMOND20s, except if I'm restoring blatant errors or BLP vio somehow. I'm not sure flags are really material to the issue here, but I generally avoid them if they're not necessary. Remsense ‥ 论 21:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does mean that the article has been flapping back and forth for the past 3 months with you apparently on both sides of the talk page issue. And if HawkNightingale175 were that sockpuppeteer, that would have been discovered by now, given how many CheckUser investigations have been run. So blanket reversion on those grounds seems quite wrong, especially when your edit summary instead says that you are making an article adhere to "site policy". Uncle G (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I wish I would have been able to get this and many other articles into a more polished state by my own positive effort—I haven't expended none, but again that seems mostly immaterial here—but I understand how that pattern can be mistaken with this one.
        They are distinct situations, though: here, I had and gave specific, fairly ubiquitous and uncontroversial reasons as to why their additions were wrong—it wasn't blanket reversion at any point. I can't help that this article also happens to be a favorite target of one of the more insistent LTAs onwiki. Remsense ‥ 论 22:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Cant have this type of editing over multiple pages. looks like multiple talks need to be started. Moxy🍁 01:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        @HawkNightingale175 has shown no interest in engaging with site guidelines that I can detect. Rather, I've only seen indications that any they haven't seen are of no interest to them—(I do not need to adhere to your own interpretation of what the rules entail.)—but if they indicate otherwise I'll try to rearticulate them. I'm not going to chase them down and beg them to listen when they've already told me flat out they don't care what I have to say. Remsense ‥ 论 23:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can something please be done about the egregious bad faith behavior that @HawkNightingale175 somehow finds tenable to express towards every other editor who's disagreeing with them across these articles? This is the worst such conduct I have seen so far from an editor with some level of experience—seriously, I'm capable of it, but that's not hyperbole. Remsense ‥ 论 02:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • @HawkNightingale175:, your commment here is utterly incorrect. The Wikipedia rules are not designed for users who are new to editing, and content that is [not] biased or factually inaccurate can still fail policy. They are designed for everybody. You are required to follow Wikipedia policy, and wilful refusal to do so can lead to an indefinite block. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not sure why you claim that I am refusing to follow Wikipedia policy, because as far as I am aware, I am not explicitly breaking any site rules, and I never stated that the Wikipedia rules were designed for only new users. The editor that you replied to was the very editor that engaged in multiple actions of wikihounding against me and just openly admitted that they are capable of engaging in misconduct, and as such their arguments should be taken for question. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      (Non-administrator comment) You are WP:EDITWARRING on First Sino-Japanese War, along with your WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS of Remsense WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Also, your statement I never stated that the Wikipedia rules were designed for only new users is incorrect, as you stated and do not need to follow guides designed for users who are new to editing. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @HawkNightingale175: Forgot to ping. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You are clearly misinterpreting what I am saying. I did not say that I did not need to follow the site rules, I merely said that I have enough experience editing on this site and as such do not need beginner's guides to learn how to edit. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That was not a beginner's guide. It was the manual of style (MOS:IBX). It states Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. People have been blocked for ignoring the manual of style. Are you saying you can ignore it? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      They certainly have acted as if their view trumps that of multiple editors who have cited it as pertains to whatever article, while providing no meaningful justification why there should be an exception in that context. That's key here—whether they choose to acknowledge site guidelines as representing generalized editor consensus, they certainly choose to ignore evidence of direct consensus they think they know better than. Their knowledge of "the rules" is seemingly obtuse enough to ignore the primacy of consensus altogether. Remsense ‥ 论 04:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As far as I am aware, I have not made any edits that are explicitly prohibited by the "manual of style". I do not know why you are so insistent that my edits are supposedly against the rules because I certainly do not see any rules that state my actions directly violate them. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Only if you choose to assume everything it says supports your prior intuitions with no friction or further introspection. That is,

      The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Barring the specific exceptions listed below, an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored. The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

      isn't a problem for you because you've already decided you're right and no one else can dispute your notion of what are "key facts". I suppose there's still the explicit problem that you're intent on including material that isn't mentioned anywhere in the actual article, but at this point I don't think you'd admit that that's a violation either, even though it's a pretty clear deduction for most other editors who read this guideline. Given you've already declared no one else should dare challenge your own interpretations of policy, what else am I supposed to come away with here? Remsense ‥ 论 09:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      While I usually feel that you are not worth responding to due to the fact that you engaged in actions of wikihounding against me, I do not see at all how my edits supposedly violated the rule you listed in the above reply. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I am willing to explain, if you're willing to potentially accept my interpretation of what the rules entail. It is also worth reiterating that if you equate any third party noticing and commenting on your poor conduct – which you freely expressed in public and still have yet to even acknowledge – as wikihounding, that is likely not a mindset that is viable for an editor in good standing to maintain in perpetuity. It's your fault that you did bad there, not mine, and it's not harassment for someone to connect the dots as regards your character with the purpose of informing community expectations going forward. Sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 16:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You explicitly stated you do not need to follow guides designed for users who are new to editing, with regards to the Manual of Style. Also saying I have not made any edits that are explicitly prohibited...I certainly do not see any rules that state my actions directly violate them is Wikilawyering. And you continue to cast aspersions regarding "wikihounding". Consider this a warning: do not continue to unfoundedly accuse Remsense (or anyone else) of Wikihounding. Continuing to do so is a personal attack and a violation of policy that can result in a block. Also agree to respect consenus even when it against you. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not sure why you are accusing me of personal attacks when the primary reason I posted on this page was because the user in question personally attacked me by going to my user talk page and responding to an unrelated thread. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      (1) You haven't provided a diff that I can see of this (2) that's not a personal attack or wikihounding. The content might be (without a diff, not saying that it is or not), the action is not (3) "They did it so I get to" does not fly here and (4) you weren't accused of personal attacks. You were warned that continuing to accuse Remsense of wikihounding without evidence of actual wikihounding would be a personal attack. Also by posting here your conduct is open to scruitny as well, not just the editor you accuse. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This edit constitutes my entire wikihounding campaign on their talk page – aside from the ANI notice I posted afterward, which I presume they're also counting since they themselves have been too polite to hound my talk either time they filed a report about me here. Remsense ‥ 论 18:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thought so. @HawkNightingale175:, that is not a personal attack and it is not Wikihounding. I strongly suggest you withdraw this ANI complaint, as continuing as you have here cannot end well for you. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Transphobia from Ergzay

    [edit]
    Thread has been open for 3+ days, and a clear consensus for a community ban. Main justifications are for (a) the acute issue of the horrid "child abuse" accusations, and (b) the chronic POV-pushing problems. I discounted those justifying a CBAN with "not here" comments, which is clearly not true, but there is still a clear consensus. I did not discount those who thought the apology was disingenuous, though I didn't see it that way myself. The case for a TBAN instead didn't gain sufficient support; it seemed like maybe things might drift in that direction, but comments have slowed down and it didn't. With commenters snarking at other commenters, it seems like it's past time to close this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle is about a custody battle over a trans child, who is now 13 and has identified as trans since 3.

    Ergzay has made numerous bigoted and disruptive edits there in the last few days, attacking the subject, trans children at large, and 2 trans editors on the page (myself included, who he accused of promoting child abuse):

    • Rewrites the article to misgender the subject with the (obscenely false) comment: Pre-pubescent child identifies as male so correct this[292] and Further fix incorrect gender uses given that his son identifies as male[293]
    • Lies on talk, saying Reliable sources state the reverse, namely that he identifies as male. (I would argue that you yourself are highly biased on this subject that you're inserting trans flags into your signature). to @RoxySaunders
    • He accuses Roxy of lying for saying it's a BLPVIO[294][295][296]
    • Says, when it's noted she was diagnosed with Gender dysphoria at 6 that That pediatrician testimony was thrown out of court because the pediatrician actively lied in court. So that is not a reliable source. with no evidence[297]
    • Removes warnings from his talk page[298][299]
    • Says on talk that It's also worth noting that children cannot reliably identify their own gender so MOS:GENDERID does not apply. The entire concept of "trans children", especially when they are pre-pubescent does not jive with reality. You cannot have a gender identity before you have started going through puberty because you brain functionally cannot even know what that is.[300]
    • When I note on talk that was bigoted, he says The only people bigotted here are yourself who are in favor of child abuse. Also trying to call it fringe when it's an over 70% popular opinion in the United States is crazy.[301]
    • I close the talk page discussion, he re-opens saying Don't close topics you're personally invested in. [302]
    • Then misgenders the kid again[303]
    • Removes further warnings from his page with the comment: Remove incorrect garbage pushing for child abuse [304]
    • Then leaves a section at my talk page titled Don't advocate for child abuse on my talk page stating Your recent edit on my talk page pushing for the abuse of children is gross and horrid. Don't do it again.[305]

    INDEF CBAN for this nonsense. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As I wrote this, he went to @DanielRigal's talk page with a section titled Don't push child abuse on my talk page saying Your warning was inappropriate. I called the child by the gender that they have used when away from his abusive mother. Do not push that kind of garbage. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the complete and accurate record. I do not have "transphobia". I am fully in support of any trans person doing whatever they like in their adult lives. It is a free country and that also means freedom to modify your body in any way you want and say anything you want. However on the topic of children it is a majority opinion that gender affirming care is severe enough to be banned. Over 59% of Americans support a ban on so-called gender affirming care for children. Ergzay (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that it matters for this discussion, but for reference I'll drop the referenced survey via a reliable source. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/05/trans-poll-gop-politics-laws/ It was actually more than I remembered, 68% support banning puberty blockers, a super majority. Ergzay (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does what Americans think matter? This isn't a local website. Also peer-reviewed scientific literature is a gold standard - not polling some people in one place. Please leave polls out of this. Nfitz (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally your characterization of me making "multiple" edits is also incorrect. I made a single edit split into two pieces at basically the same time and have not touched the piece since. I've commented on talk pages and pushed back against people attacking me on my talk page, as you personally have done as well here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ergzay&diff=prev&oldid=1283356769 Ergzay (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point considering the vociferousness of responses I'm not going to make any more edits on the page as I don't want to deal with the extreme reactions of people that happened afterwards. I'll handle this subject in real life and at the ballot box and not on wikipedia. (The anything but friendly "neighborhood socialist" has also greatly contributed to my confirmation bias on various things. There is no possibility of building a Wikipedia under such conditions.) Ergzay (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ergzay, do you believe that "socialist" and "sociologist" are synonyms? Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Was just going to ask that lol Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ROFL. That's a slip on my part. I just realized. I read it as socialist every time. Makes sense now when I was trying to type it out manually several times it never came up and had to copy paste it. Though I'd bet the vast majority of sociologist are socialists. Ergzay (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ergzay, [citation needed]. Cullen328 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, that's why I said "I'd bet". I doubt anyone's ever done a survey study on the political leanings of occupational sociologists. Ergzay (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They've done it for scientists and various science specialisation. Surprising if Sociologists weren't also surveyed Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Old but supports my view it's definitely been done. [306]. I'm not sure if identifiying as socialist was one of the questions asked but political leanings seems definite. Nil Einne (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The abstract of that paper is sending me. Claiming sociology "distrusts reason" sure buddy. Say that to all the stats and methods classes I had to take for sociology. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't sounds like the surveys mentioned were done by the writers of that paper so whatever issues may exist with them (and there tend to be plenty), is probably fairly separate from possible issues with the paper. Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Latest comment from Erzgay, quadrupling down on accusing editors of supporting child abuse and misgendering the girl (but, proving to be slightly original by accusing us of "fiction-writing" for not misgendering) for future note, I'm no longer going to reply here. Too many people are way too emotionally involved in this subject. Dealing with multiple people attacking me on my personal talk page on this is enough. I'm done. Let your fiction writing reign, I don't want to deal with it anymore. I hope you'll follow the idea of "believe child abuse victims" when his son becomes an adult and regrets the abuse he suffered at the hands of his mother and the state shoving drugs into him.[307] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Intentionally mangling by username doesn't help your case. Ergzay (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a typo, my bad Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not assuming good faith hurts yours Ergzay. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Insanityclown1 It may, but given I was personally attacked by this person I'm not sure why you'd expect me to assume good faith. It was also a mangling that people have done intentionally to me in the past. Ergzay (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why anyone worth interacting with would want to intentionally mangle your username. It's not like Erzgay is offensive unless it's from someone who thinks there's something wrong with being gay. If you're hanging out in crowds where people regularly think there's something wrong with being gay, perhaps look for better crowds. (I mean obviously there are large chunks of the internet which are "broken" and you'll encounter trolls and other idiots in a lot of places. But the point is if you aren't regularly in crowds where such crap is normalised, you shouldn't be assuming everyday people you're interacting with would do it. Even in cases where you're in strong disagreement with them, unless they're homophobic bigots who's stupidity you know is best to ignore and you're only interacting with them to counter something they're saying.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    INDEF/CBAN Survey

    [edit]
    • Support INDEF / CBAN for this atrocious behavior. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Bejakyo pointed out this was a double vote since I called for the same sanction in the original post to this board, so I'm noting that here so it's only counted once.[308] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support INDEF/CBAN. I have tried composing 3 messages responding to the above but they don't really express my opinions on Ergzays behaviour adequately, so I won't try. Accusations of advocating for child abuse for fairly calmly sticking to Wikipedia policy on neutrality, sourcing and BLP policy is crap. Really crap. I can't be bothered to even expand on that as the accusations alone are enough to support a ban.Knitsey (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support INDEF/CBAN - clear aspersions on Ergzay's part and just general WP:NOTHERE behaviour. MiasmaEternal☎ 03:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment - looking through Ergzay's talk page archives, I spotted a warning for edit warning, and this reply in 2020 to Doug Weller (It appears like WP admins can't tell fake material from the truth then. I don't care about your threats.) when this edit was undone. MiasmaEternal☎ 04:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bans aren't decided by polls Just FWIW. Though I have little doubt I'll get a ban because any administrator opposing such a ban would themselves be attacked by other administrators. Ergzay (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No but they are often decided by community consensus on en Wikipedia. In fact before DS, they nearly always were Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You'll get a ban because you decided you were going to right a great wrong, and the community has no tolerance for that sort of nonsense. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @The Bushranger I made a single edit and some talk page comments. I've never heard of someone getting banned from all of Wikipedia over that. Ergzay (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It happens, but most editors don't make serious BLP violations and then accuse their fellow editors of supporting child abuse, so it's rare. Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nil Einne To be clear, I do think I was in the wrong and I went too far. However the accusations were not completely random and were directly related to the material in question. And again I do think I was wrong to burst out and say what I did, however the mischaracterization is frustrating. Ergzay (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support INDEF/CBAN. Hate is disruptive, and all these aspersions/accusations are incredibly NOTHERE. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 04:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support INDEF block of user. The accusations of specific editors supporting child abuse (as personal position rather than a certain edit or dispute about certain sources, repeated and amplified widely after being called on it, is itself enough of a bright line. The additional unsupported claims of editors lying and other PA pushes further in that direction. CBANContent-/topic-centric restrictions, such as under GENSEX would remove the editor from the topic-area and solve the article-behavior problem, but there are too many and too severe of a fundamental behavior incompatible with WP. DMacks (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @DMacks Just FYI I think you have WP:TBAN and WP:CBAN mixed up, the former's topic-focused while the latter's more weighty than even an indef block. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, I was seeing "C" as "content" (topic-centric) not "community" (editor-centric), as I usually only deal with users as an "indef block" action. I updated my comment (markup strike/insert). Thanks for the gentle clue. DMacks (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose INDEF/CBAN but... Edit: support tban a clear warning or perhaps a gender-related TBAN is justified if a history of problems can be shown. This is an editor who has been on the site since 2006 with a clear block log. YFNS's actions come off as more trying to punish an editor for wrong think rather than for some sort of wide spread disruption. Additionally, the transphobia accusation is less than ideal given the context and absent some sort of additional evidence. Certainly the gender of the child is a core part of the dispute and it's understandable that some would question if Wikipedia should be using stated vs biological gender in a case like this one. As a matter of course Wikipedia goes with stated gender but it should also be understood that isn't a universally held view and reasonable people can disagree here. Absent some evidence that they have a long history of issues on trans topics I don't see a CBAN or INDEF as reasonable. If editors can show they have previously been warned about this I think a stronger case could be made for a tban vs a warning. If they haven't been given a CT notice for gender-related topics and have no prior issues in the area then an explanation and warning is appropriate. Springee (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC) Edit to remove warning and go with tban. I think the additional discussions have convinced me that a warning isn't sufficient. Namely the implication that editors here are defending child abuse. Springee (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      YFNS's actions come off as more trying to punish an editor for wrong think rather than for some sort of wide spread disruption. I'm sorry, are you arguing that an editor misgendering a living person (on a page that has warning markup, by text he edited, noting the talk consensus) in almost a dozen edits after being warned, accusing subjects of the article of child abuse, and accusing multiple editors of supporting child abuse and being biased for being trans is not disruption? And claiming that trans kids cannot know they're trans, and are being pressured into being trans by their parents, isn't transphobic? And multiple warnings for edit warring are not a history of problems? Are you actually arguing this is about wrong think? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That disruption would be handled by a TBAN. Why is a CBAN necessary? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The disruption was open bigotry against a minority, living article subjects who are members of it, and editors who are. Besides, this is a question to Springee why they do not consider Ergzay's behavior transphobic or disruption and why they call it "wrong think" for me to report an editor for accusing me of supporting child abuse...
      WP:HID explains it well though: a topic ban may help with content disruption, but will not make editors from the affected group comfortable around the editor in question. (After all, the average person from some targeted group does not only edit articles about that group.) So if someone is engaged in concerted hate speech, the proper remedy will usually be an indefinite block or siteban. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I really don’t buy that we can argue there is sitewide disruption from topic-specific misbehavior because some editors won’t feel comfortable with the misbehaving editor in question no matter what. “Being someone who was once disruptive” is not itself considered a form of disruption on Wikipedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You don't buy it, but the majority of editors here consider open bigotry against editors, article subjects, and the minority they're a part of, after multiple warnings, worthy of a CBAN and not a ban on discussing the minority. So feel free not to purchase. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Uh, okay. Thanks. Are you gonna reply something to the effect of “that’s just what YOU think! Say whatever you want, it’s not what everyone else thinks!” to everyone who opposes your proposal? I think blocking editors because they’re permanently and fundamentally tarred with a fact that will make some editors feel uncomfortable collaborating with them is stupid. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You replied to a question I asked of another user to ask me one I've already made my answer clear to in this discussion. When I reiterate my reasoning, and say you can disagree, you reiterate that you disagree and object to me pointing out you're free to disagree. How is this helpful?
      You think it's stupid to ban editors from the site for bigotry / personal attacks instead of a topic area, that's your prerogative. Your opinion has been expressed and noted. I won't change your mind and vice versa so we have to agree to disagree. I asked a question of Springee, and things they said about me, which I'd like an answer to, so I won't reply to you any further here. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Springee, me and apparently @LightNightLights would like an answer as to why you think Ergzay's actions weren't transphobic and why you think reporting an editor for accusing me, and other editors, and living people of supporting child abuse is trying to punish an editor for wrong think? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In reading the original complaint I don't think I gave the child abuse part enough merit. If the claim was "what is happening to that child is child abuse" I would view that as something that an editor is allowed to think. However, suggesting any editor supports child abuse, regardless of type, is not OK. That said, it also appears that this was said in the heat of the moment and after the editor felt attacked. They apologized the next morning, even reaching out to you to apologize directly. That further supports my view that an INDEF/CBAN is unjustified. Springee (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And yet their edits show a pattern of bigotry, and the community appears to agree that a half hearted attempt at an apology is insufficient at this point. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Just for the record, as was linked in the original report here, they were given a CT notice for GENSEX 05:31, March 31, 2025 (before everything other than the two diffs in the first bullet point). They've also been given CT notices for American Politics (January 22, 2025) and BLP (October 26, 2021). That's just going by edits tagged with CT alert, they may fall under one of the other "presumed to be aware" things. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The proposed TBAN is a community sanction. The awareness rules are for WP:CTOP sanctions. This just happens to cover the same scope as an ArbCom-designated CTOP, but since the closing admin would be acting on behalf of the community, not of ArbCom, it doesn't matter. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      +1, I was just responding to the part where Springee said If editors can show they have previously been warned and If they haven't been given a CT notice. Just figured it was worth pointing out that they have been given one CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef/Cban. Everyone else has thoroughly explained why, but the fact they apparently think America rules the world is also...a thing. It doesn't matter what popular opinion in the United States says, its what Wikipeida standards say. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The article is about a case in America between Americans. That other countries are somehow relevant makes no sense. Ergzay (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia is an international project so if you're going to accuse another editor of supporting child abuse because of what American's believe, then yes other countries comes in to it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      They came to my talk page calling me a bigot for having a political opinion they disagreed with first. Ergzay (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) No they called you out for trying to edit an article in violation of our policies and guidelines. I'd add articles should represent a worldwide view even if they only describe local events and people. If we have an article on something in Afghanistan, where some local person mutilated or murdered their (locally born) daughter or wife because of something the father/husband viewed as a transgression, then even if it's true most Afghanis think this person's actions were perfectly justified and not wrong our article is not going to treat this like the case. (Frankly I don't think we can really know what most Afghanis think under the Taliban but that's largely an aside.) If it can be sourced, our article will mention this local view, but the article will treat these actions as major wrongs. If an editor demands demands that this article is wrong because it demonstrates a worldwide PoV and argues it should only an American PoV, they'd rightfully be called out for it. And if you are going to offer your political opinions expected to be called out if they're horrible opinions. The best solution is to keep that crap to yourself and concentrate on how we can improve articles, not what you personally think. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm going to disagree with the framing in most of your comment there, but I certainly agree that I'm never going to touch this topic again for a long time into the future after the hornet's nest this brought up. I couldn't sleep last night because of this garbage. Ergzay (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is it's not just a matter of not touching this topic. It's clear from your replies you still don't understand how unacceptable it was to accuse another editor of supporting child abuse just because of your personal opinions. Also for clarity I meant "Afghani PoV" not "American PoV" in my comment above. Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      For what it's worth, I do now think I went too far and have apologized on all parties personal talk pages. Ergzay (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef/CBAN This is an editor who has broken BLP (by misgendering and just straight up referring to child abuse) and has not provided a single source to back up their claims. They then went on to accuse other editors of pushing for child abuse, a clear set of PA's. The doubling down of behaviour after being warned via CTOP notices and the like seems particularly worrying (particularly the subsequent PA's on the people giving those warnings). LunaHasArrived (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @LunaHasArrived I did not "double down on the behavior". I stopped responding on the topic and started messaging people to stop messaging me. I don't want anything to do with the topic anymore. This hornet's nest is way beyond anything I was expecting. Ergzay (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef/CBAN - reasonable people can disagree on how content in articles should be presented and written, but once you cross the line and start attacking editors with unfounded and horrific allegations of pushing for child abuse, and then doubling down on those allegations, it's time for a forced break from the project. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note that as a discussion on a community ban, but this discussion can't be closed early. I believe it must stay open either 24 or 48 hours (please check me). Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I recently reported the message on my User Talk page to AIV so maybe that will deal with it faster. If not, then lets see what the next day or two brings. --DanielRigal (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef/CBAN - Irrespective of any good that they may have done in the past we can't have people flipping an article 180 degrees from the truth as reported by RS and then trying to bully people just for fixing it and pointing out our policies. The vandalism is enough for a block. The personal attacks are enough for a block. Both, plus the unrepentant grandstanding here, are enough for a CBAN. There is no way that this user can collaborate with a mindset like this. It is sad when an editor with almost two decades on here gets banned but I can't see any other possible outcome given the behaviour. --DanielRigal (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN their BLP violations would be enough for me to support an cban, unless there was some very quick indication they understood the need for drastic change. I'd include the misgendering in this. What Ergzay wants to personally believe, I don't care but the requirements for what they say on wiki, even when not in articles, are clear and especially for a living person. But anyway once they accused other editors of such things, a cban is really the only path forward. While I'm not opposed to a simple indef as I think the chance of an admin unilaterally unblocking in poor circumstances is very low, a community ban does make it clearer how bad their behaviour has been and how far they need to go to edit here again. Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I still support a CBAN. The apology is a good start and I have some sympathies to an editor making comments in anger and not remembering exactly what they'd said until reminded. (Per 10:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC), it sounds like this is one of the reasons they continued to defend themselves even after having a chance to calm down.) I'd also note that the cban seemed clear while they were still defending themselves. So while I can understand the perennial concern an editor is just apologising to try and get out of sanction, it seems most likely to me this apology is sincere and came from a genuine realising of what they'd done. And even the time taken to get there is not such a severe strike. Uncle G's analysis raises some concerns, however they'd be far from the only editor who is probably letting their biases affect their editing a bit too much and I don't feel there's enough to justify a CBAN. Ultimately if it was only the comments and editing about article subjects, I might be convinced a BLP topic ban together with a GENSEX one might be enough. (But not solely GENSEX, rather their reason for making such serious BLP violations, I don't trust an editor who makes such severe BLP violations to make any editing related to BLPs.) But their earlier severe comments about their fellow editors IMO means even with their apology a cban is justified. Perhaps them simply staying away from the area would be enough that they can avoid doing this ever again, perhaps not. Accusing other editors of pushing for the abuse of children is severe enough that I'd rather not find out. Even if the editors affects are perfectly fine with it, I don't expect editors need to feel that way when such a horrific accusation. As always indefinite does not mean infinite, and so they continue to recognise the problems with their editing with some future appeal, it might be okay to risk letting them edit again, but not right now. Note I'm always opposed to blocking or site banning editors for their personal views no matter how horrific they may be. Frankly I'd even oppose it if an editor says something like "I feel anyone who supports trans-rights for children is supporting the abuse of children" or something similar provided they quick learn to STFU as we don't care about their personal views. However once you've actually directly accused your fellow editors of disgusting stuff, that's a clear problem. Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN Wikipedia should not tolerate this bigotry at all. Send Ergzay packing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suport Indef/CBAN - blatent BLP violatons, as well as numerious cases of toxic bigoted incivility towards multiple other editors. Both actions are against important wikipedia policies. Such a culture cannot be allowed to festerBejakyo (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't attack anyone. People came to _my_ talk page attacking me for a _single_ edit I made. I deleted their comments and put comments on their talk page to stop and no longer put such content on my talk page. Ergzay (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      People came to your talk page to provide a good faith notification to stop edit waring, you responded to "a single edit" (which is evidently not the case), by calling RoxySaunders a liar, and YFNS a child abuser. This along with other instances of tenditious editing is simply not conductive to wikipedia
      For the benefit of others, the talk page notifications Ergazy removed one such notification here claiming DanielRigal was pushing for child abuse, and the removal of other such notifications here Bejakyo (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes they came to my talk page accusing me of being a bigot, if that is not a personal attack I don't know what is. Ergzay (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      requesting you to stop promoting bigotry is not a personal attack, nor would a personal attack merrit describing wikipedia editors as a child abusers as you have so done Bejakyo (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Calling someone a bigot is absolutely a personal attack irregardless of context. I don't know how to state this otherewise. Ergzay (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Being called out for bigotry is not a personal attack regardless of if it hurts your feelings. And again, even if being called a bigot were an attack, it is not justification to describe multiple other users as child abusers.
      If you don't know how to state this otherwise you are freely able to WP:dropthestick and walk away Bejakyo (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not describe multiple other users as child abusers. And calling someone a bigot is absolutely a personal attack. I've seen people warned over doing so before. Ergzay (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You did indeed describe multiple users as child abusers. Calling out bigotry is not a personal attack. the purposes of those notices is a simple friendly reminder to mind oneself when furthering bigotry unknowingly Bejakyo (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And they doubled down on that in this discussion by calling me a "Transphobe" when I am not, as I explained in my top level replies. Ergzay (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "Transphobe" is in quotes, even though it isn't quoting anyone. Nobody has used that word in this discussion, except you, in this reply. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's in the title of this section. Ergzay (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You are twisting (well evidenced!) accusations of poor behaviour into personal attacks. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) If you'd just wanted an editor to stay away from your talk page, you could have just said, "please stay away from my talk page". Occasionally an editor does this and I'm generally supportive of a harassment indef if an editor keeps posting on another editor's talk page when they've been asked to stop per WP:USERTALKSTOP. But that isn't what you did, as you well known. Frankly per my comment I'd likely still be supporting an cban or at least an indef even were it not for your child abuse accusation but as I said once you made it, cban is in my mind the best path forward. The fact you're now downplaying it as just asking an editor to stay away from your talk page is clear evidence that you haven't learnt the important lesson of how bad your comment was, so a cban is well justified as it seems unlikely you will learn. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We're getting divorced from reality. My "child abuse accusation" was an accusation that they support child abuse by calling me a bigot for supporting a child's actual gender orientation that they have related to their father. This is how far we are down this rabbit hole. Ergzay (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes it was an accusation of supporting child abuse however you want to spin it. In fact it was beyong just supporting child abuse, you said "pushing for the abuse of children". Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nil Einne You're right, after reviewing, I did use those specific words and I agree that was going way too far. I did not remember my word use being that bad. That was not my intention. Apologies. Ergzay (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN: Accusing other editors of supporting child abuse because Ergzay doesn't care for their politics is a bright-line here. Like Bushranger, I'm likewise bemused by the premise that popular opinion in the United States is worth a tinker's damn in this discussion; this is not, after all, Conservapedia. That Ergzay has been around for a number of years doesn't confer immunity to civility policies. Ravenswing 09:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ravenswing I did NOT accuse other editors as supporting child abuse because of their politics. Ergzay (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      [309] I'm not really interested in "oh, it wasn't for THAT reason that I accused editors of promoting child abuse" weasel wording Ravenswing 09:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not "weasel wording" when that edit you just linked is because a person came on to my talk page, without any interaction on an article talk page and made personal attacks calling me as being a bigot and making further false claims claiming something I did not do. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ergzay&diff=prev&oldid=1283356769 Ergzay (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN. Obviously WP:NOTHERE. For what it's worth, they did leave an apology on my talk page in which they blame their actions on an emotional reaction they had to the alleged child abuse. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 10:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN. Saying that both YFNS ([310], [311]) and Daniel Rigal ([312]) are in favour of child abuse is an outrageous personal attack which we should not tolerate. Doubling down in this thread: trying to justify their comments because "they attacked me first" (e.g. [313]), denying that they made personal attacks (e.g. [314]) and minimising their attacks (e.g. [315]) is also not encouraging. I am pleased to see that Ergzay has now reflected on their comments and apologised on YFNS, Daniel Rigal, and Roxy's talk pages, and I think that in time they could appeal a ban, but these are such egregious attacks that right now an apology feels like too little too late. The level of compromised judgement required to make these comments in the first place makes me feel as though a CBAN is still necessary. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN This is grossly inappropriate behaviour that violates both WP:BLP and WP:AGF in the worst possible ways. This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Really, they’re clearly not here to build an encyclopedia? They have thousands of good edits. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is clearly going to pass, but Oppose Indef/CBAN - banning someone with 5,000 edits who has been here for 15 years for one spat is a ridiculous overreaction. And especially calling them WP:NOTHERE even more so - that essay is about the sum total of one's edits, and one doesn't cease to be here for behaving disruptively in one incident. No objection to a topic ban from the GENSEX area, but I'm not seeing why that wouldn't be sufficient. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The editor called two other editors child abusers. For declining to misgender a child. That's incredibly egregious. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, I shouldn't have said what I did to those three other editors, but it was not because they "declined to misgender a child", it was because I felt the child was being misgendered. And again what I said was beyond the pale and not conducive to good editing on Wikipedia. Ergzay (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose CBAN; support TBAN from WP:GENSEX and strong warning. One of the reasons we have CTOPs is that there are certain topics that have a tendency to, frankly, make smart people's brains turn off. Someone is a reasonable editor for years and then they see something on the news about Israel, or COVID, or abortion, or, yes, gender, and they start talking like somebody else entirely. That was my read of this situation even before Ergzay's latest comments confirming that that's exactly what happened here. However, before those comments I'd held off on opposing this proposal, because, as I've argued a number of times in the past, a TBAN from GENSEX is an inadequate remedy to harassing editors on the basis of gender. As I wrote some time ago at Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive § Appropriate remedies, a topic ban may help with content disruption, but will not make editors from the affected group comfortable around the editor in question. (After all, the average person from some targeted group does not only edit articles about that group.)
      However, Ergzay's apology by the cold light of day reads as sincere. It is of course up to those affected whether to accept the apology. And only time will tell which is the "real" Ergzay: the one who said some quite horrible things, or the one who apologized for it. But based on over 15 years of constructive editing, I'm not comfortable supporting a CBAN over one incident if the user has credibly apologized. Instead, I support a TBAN from GENSEX, a warning in the strongest possible terms for harassment, and an advisement to Ergzay that, even if not formally IBANned, they should avoid the other editors involved here if at all possible going forward. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose CBAN; support GENSEX TBAN per Tamzin's above argument. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure how sincere the apology is, it came right after repeatedly insisting I did not describe multiple other users as child abusers.[316], said for _reasoned_ political support that a _majority_ of Americans hold. I really don't get what's going on anymore. Nothing I did was unprovoked and out of nowhere. (this ignores the repeated attacks on 2 living article subjects: the trans girl and her mother, which he seems completely unapologetic of)[317], and concluding I do not think any of them are actual child abuse supporters. Not anymore at least. I don't want to deal with this and I want to stay far far away from the subject going forward.[318]. His apology below continues to make digs at the subject's identity and claim that the father (who has been to spent almost a decade insisting his daughter was turned trans, forcing her to shave her hair, etc) has been mistreated and justified the content changes outraged by how the father was treated and what his child was going through and I went and looked on the wikipedia page about the court case. I was extremely angered to see the completely one sided take that the article had and made appropriate edits.. Not to mention thanking Springee for standing up for him after Springee said there wasn't disruption and that this was about "wrong think" after doing his perfunctory apologies[319]
      And wrt the 15-20 years of "constructive editing": The overwhelming majority of his edits have been between 2021-2025, with 2006-2020 combined not matching even 2021[320], focused almost entirely on Elon Musk and culture-war type things regarding him (and his rockets)[321][322], resulting in multiple trips to WP:ANEW[323] to say nothing of the stream of blanked edit warring notices and warnings for personal attacks from his talk page[324]. It's more so 4 years of highly questionable editing than 15 years of being constructive.
      Finally And only time will tell which is the "real" Ergzay: the one who said some quite horrible things, or the one who apologized for it. is a false dichotomy in my view. The "real" Ergzay said horrible things about 2 living article subjects (one because she's trans, the other because she supported her), and 3 editors (accusing them of lying, being too biased since they're trans, supporting child abuse, etc), repeatedly, and continuously lied throughout this discussion arguing they didn't. In my message on their talk page, I warned they should not edit GENSEX if they're coming with the claim the existence of trans kids doesn't "jive with reality", to which they claimed they didn't say that and then accused me of supporting child abuse, hence the ANI trip I did not want to make initially and had given him a chance to avoid. The "real" Ergzay, at the point it was obvious a CBAN was practically inevitable, started half-apologizing. People are responsible for their actions and horrible behavior from someone, whatever the reason, is horrible behavior from the "real" person in their totality - a dubious apology after the fact, in the face of sanctions, says much less about their character than the original.
      If these attacks were not in GENSEX, we would not even be debating a CBAN. Your quote of WP:HID sums it up perfectly in my view - this is somebody who went on bigoted tirades about editors and living people. Merely restricting him from the minority he railed against is an inadequate measure and sends the message that disruptive bigotry won't get you sanctioned any further than talking about the minority. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I give a lot of weight to apologies, and always have. I wouldn't be where I am in life, on-wiki or off-, if people hadn't accepted apologies for some things I said or did. If I'm wrong to extend this WP:ROPE, and there is a recurrence of this kind of behavior, I'll be the first in line to make the indefinite block—and an indef after escaping a CBAN for the same conduct is de facto a CBAN itself, in that few if any admins will overturn without community consensus. But sure, it's completely fair to interpret HID as cutting the other way here. This is just where I come down based on my own philosophy of apologies and atonement. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Commendable af and one of my favorite things about you for the record. Where I'm at is, even if I did find the apology completely genuine, I'd still think a CBAN necessary. At least for now (I supported removing Roxy's after a while even, though tbf it was much less egregious conduct). An apology is best imo when it accepts the consequences while apologies in the name of avoiding consequences are cheaper. To quote the late great PTerry, no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN - Accusing other editors of being apologists for child abuse is beyond the pale and (even without the GENSEX aspect) would be grounds for an immediate indef block for egregious personal attacks. Adding in the GENSEX aspect only makes matters worse, as his accusations now become egregious BLP violations writ large for reasons which should be obvious to anyone rational that can read and follow the conversation: He's accusing one or both parents of child abuse. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • TBAN at the very least, but I would also not be opposed to an indef for this and this edit summary. I note that the user has apologised, which is something, but from reading this thread it took a significant amount of time before they stopped trying to claim they were justified in posting such offensive material. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose CBAN, Support TBAN from WP:GENSEX If editors show they cannot function or contribute constructively, or rather, without being disruptive in a single area, but are otherwise constructive and a net positive, we restrict them from that area. Was he out of line? Yes. Is a CBAN going too far? Also yes. The above comments such as ). An apology is best imo when it accepts the consequences while apologies in the name of avoiding consequences are cheaper. appears to not view a TBAN as a consequence, as well as potentially not understanding the the spirit of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. We block to prevent further disruption. If there is no risk of disruption outside that area, he should not be banned from the entire website. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE - a perfunctory half-apology (that still has not recognized that attacking living people on the basis of their identity is wrong) does not cancel out attacking multiple editors on the basis of their identity, attacking living subjects on the basis of their identity, and attacking an entire demographic on the basis of identity.
      The consequence of egregious compounded displays of bigotry in violation of multiple sections of the Universal Code of Conduct should be removal from the platform, not the slap on the wrist that is "you're no longer allowed to talk about this minority and otherwise you're off the hook", especially considering at no point has he apologized for 1) bigoted comments about the minority at large (as opposed to specific editors) and 2) bigoted comments about living article subjects.
      "You aren't allowed to make bigoted comments about minorities" is the baseline behavior expected of an editor. A TBAN for this behavior means we've shifted that baseline to "You are allowed to spend a day making bigoted comments about minorities directed at editors, article subjects, and the minority at large just this once as a freebie" Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Hate is disruptive insofar as it is expressed. If a topic ban would solve the issue of expression, then why does the genuineness of someone’s contrition, or a change in their viewpoint (which they wouldn’t be allowed to express anymore anyways) matter? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The talk pages of transgender Wikipedia editors do not comprise a "topic". –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 11:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't view this as a freebie, I'm saying he contributes positively outside of this field but is not able to do so in this field. Topic bans are by zero means "freebies". You appear to be seeking a purely punitive block which goes against the spirit of the policy. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @DarmaniLink: Accusing other editors of defending child abuse with no real evidence is in and of itself grounds for a summary indef. Doing so in a manner that accuses other non-editor living people of child abuse is in and of itself grounds for a summary indef. Repeatedly continuing to defend such edits right up until the bouncer is about to hurl you into the trashcans in the alley nearby is an exacerbating factor. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Absolutely unacceptable. I agree. Is there a risk of further disruption however that TBAN and an IBAN can't solve? I'm not convinced. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      They make it clear that why they may be here to help build an encyclopedia, they are not compatible with a collaborative project. Blocks/bans are not punitive, but the fact that they have, in fact, done this, and given an apology that reads very much as "not actually sorry, just sorry they got called out on it and are facing a ban" makes it clear that it cannot be trusted that this sort of attitude won't spill over into other areas if they're merely tbanned. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      With respect, they've been here since 2006 with over 5000 edits. This isn't a new editor. They already have a track record. WP:ROPE DarmaniLink (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yep. They aren't a new editor. Therefore they should know better. As for the over 5000 edits, I point to Uncle G's analysis. This isn't the first time they've edited with a clear bias, and quite a few of these biased edits have been outside GENSEX. They are not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      They really should know better. Pardon my french, but when I look at UncleG's list of various incidents, such as 2020: Special:Diff/956623227 — removal of "hate group" appellation, I just wonder how in the hell someone can even argue that a Neo-Nazi terrorist organization isn't a hate group. Maybe I'm dense, but I thought that should be pretty obvious to any rationally minded individual. Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It was a claim in wiki voice that was sourced to the the SPLC. At minimum it should have been attributed. A number of editors have raised concerns about treating the SPLC as a RS. Springee (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)See correction below[reply]
      Yeah, forgive me, but that's a lame attempt at excusing that. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Correction: It was attributed to SPLC. That said, should any claim by the SPLC, or any activist organization, be DUE for inclusion without a 3rd party RS reporting on it? A number of editors (disclaimer, myself included) feel the answer is no. Thus this may be a principled edit rather than one trying to hide that it's a hate group (something I presume the rest of the article would make clear. Springee (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And yet community consensus is that the SPLC is generally reliable in regards to extremism and hate groups. You're going to have to do a lot harder to try to explain away Ergzay's bigotry. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The various SPLC discussions make it clear the community is mixed on their use. Additionally, a number of community members are warry of citing any activist organization absent a 3rd party RS making the connection. Also, saying Ergzay is a bigot is a personal attack. Springee (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      this thread has more than enough evidence to support a statement that ergzay's behavior is bigoted. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And yet that has not been sufficient to downgrade the community's treatment of the SPLC as a source from generally reliable. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You should keep in mind that the edit was made almost 5 years ago. Not every editor checks the RSP page before making edits. An editor, acting in good faith, could have seen that the SLPC designation was only in the first paragraph of the lead but not in the article body thus would be UNDUE for the lead (or should have been added to the body). Perhaps the editor saw the recent MOS discussion on the use of the SPLC in the lead of articles [325] and felt that no consensus existed. The problem is you have jumped to the conclusion that this edit could only have been done for problematic reasons. You haven't asked why they did it (which might be hard to recall nearly 5 years later). They didn't edit war to keep the sentence out. Are you suggesting that disagreeing with something like that is automatically an issue? Your comment "Egrazy's bigoty" could be read as a personal attack. Are you suggesting we should assume the worst and that you meant it as a personal attack vs a statement about their comments (not about them as a person)? We have a situation here were the edits *could* have a policy, good faith, compliant explanation. Why should we jump to the negative conclusion without even asking? Certainly we shouldn't use such edits as any sort of evidence of a problem absent some additional evidence related to those edits. Springee (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And we also have a problematic pattern of behavior by Ergzay. I'm not suggesting disagreeing with someone is automatically an issue. But when we have an issue at present and a long running pattern of behavior that would support a tendency towards bigoted behavior, its very difficult to view any of the listed edits in a positive light. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "Any of the list"? What is wrong with this edit [326]? Before this goes any further, would you edit your previous entry to make it clear that "explain away Ergzay's bigotry" is about their statements, not the person? Springee (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Bigoted statements from a person = bigotry from the person = the person's bigotry. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a difference between saying somebody is a bigot, and noting they said a lot of bigoted things (ie, were engaging in bigotry). Statements like claiming that The entire concept of "trans children" ... does not jive with reality, accusing editors of supporting child abuse for not misgendering a trans child, misgendering a trans child repeatedly after being warned (BLP applies to talk), and accusing trans editors of bias and being personally invested is indisputably bigoted. Signed, a grown up trans child, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that there is a difference between stating someone is a bigot vs saying a comment is bigoted. However, the comment, "explain away Ergzay's bigotry" reads as something about the person. "explaining away their bigoted actions/comments" would make it clear the comments, not the person's qualities/self are the issue. Perhaps Insanityclown1 could clarify. Springee (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "Ergzay's bigotry" seems like a perfectly valid way of describing bigotry from Ergzay. To paraphrase the Emperor's New Groove: Oh, right. The bigotry. The bigotry from Ergzay, the bigotry openly displayed by Ergzay, Ergzay's bigotry Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Amusing post-hoc policy justification for an edit that simply claimed they are "not a legitimate source", again, to remove the designation as a hate group from the page of a neo-nazi organization REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      +1. It's good that we've gotten past the pernicious mindset (that haunted Wikipedia for so many years) that after a certain undefined number of edits, an editor was immunized from having to follow civility and notability rules; that let the MickMcNees and Lugnutses to rampage for so long. I'd rather not see that syndrome return. Ravenswing 10:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support INDEF/CBAN. I was going to support a GENSEX TBAN until Uncle G's review of recent edits made it clear that the pattern of biased editing goes well beyond GENSEX. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support INDEF / CBAN. The appalling behavior displayed here deserves nothing less. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 09:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support INDEF / CBAN. Pretty revolting behavior. Absolutely unacceptable. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 23:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you're trying to build an encyclopaedia collaboratively, you need a community of people you can collaborate with. This person isn't one of them: their discourse style is harsh, rude, hectoring, tendentious, and exhausting. CBAN.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Tamzin's proposal. Xe knows whereof xe speaks. --GRuban (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And quite frankly, anyone trying to defend this offensive transphobia as "wrongthink" needs to have a good think about whether they are a good fit for a collaborative encyclopedia. Would they be defending it if it was racism or misogynism? I'd guess not, because we block for that sort of thing; apparently transphobia is still allowed a little more leeway. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I’m going to have to go with a CBAN here. Transphobia and other personal attacks aren’t tolerated, and hopefully never will be. EF5 23:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Support a temporary 14 day - 3 month CBAN and a permanent, but appealable TBAN for WP:GENSEX. This user has been constructively contributing for several years. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN replace the topic with race rather than GENSEX and we wouldn't even be discussing a potential topic ban we'd straight up indef, so why should we tolerate transphobia? Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a question I find myself asking all too often on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN per above by Lavalizard101 and the fact that they have now, under the heading "Do not make edits to the this talk page", written "If you desperately wish to talk to me, send me an email. I do not want to talk to anyone at all. I'm traumatized by recent events and can't even think about Wikipedia without getting panic attacks right now. Just don't talk to me. Ergzay (talk) 1:22 pm, Today (UTC+1" Doug Weller talk 12:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As someone with an anxiety disorder, this seems like a rather silly thing to have panic attacks about, but to each their own. Insanityclown1 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Don’t let your decency fly out of the window just because you think you’ve found a deserving target. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN The comments made were really beyond the pale and were doubled down on time and again. The apology below does not read sincere at all. And a topic ban is clearly not enough in this case. Being able to work collaboratively with such an editor anywhere on Wikipedia after this is thoroughly shot and it seems likely they'd just keep to any TBAN by then working to undermine any other topics trans editors work on other than this area. I see no way around such an issue when the whole purpose is collaboratively building of an encyclopedia, which they do not seem here to do. Also, the point by Lavalizard101 just above really exemplifies the entire problem with the opposing statements further up. SilverserenC 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN So, like Tamzin, I do take apologies seriously, and reading the apology below I actually do think that it seems basically sincere, and while it wouldn't dissuade me from a TBAN (among other things its missing important bits like misgendering the child) it might've dissuaded me from a CBAN on its own. However, to get to the apology you also have to scroll through a list of this editor's contributions over time, and that list strongly suggest to me that this is not just a GENSEX problem and that this person has been POV-pushing consistently over decades. I also have to say that while the apology seems sincere, there's a big difference between a sincere apology as a reaction to widespread condemnation of your behavior and a sincere apology caused by you reevaluting your behavior on your own. Loki (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    5100 edits since 2006

    [edit]

    I thought that I'd take a little look into this; because both the people who are waving "not here" around and the people waving it as a defence haven't reviewed the history in detail. Reviewing it, it supports the conclusion that Wikipedia tolerates people for their expressed political views and it is only when those cross the line into outright politicized attacks on editors and article subjects that the community gets up in arms.

    There are many article content edits, and there is work on improving the encyclopaedia and dealing with sockpuppets and vandalism, and clearly the "not here" accusation is false. But equally there's a clear agenda to the editing going all of the way back to 2006. Examples of both:

    Predictably, where xe gets onto noticeboards and disputes it is when xe is involved with Elon Musk and U.S.A. politics articles such as Missy Cummings. But xyr involvement in topics like South Padre Island, Texas and many others seems trouble-free over the years. Uncle G (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you using the neopronoun xe for this editor? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncle G does that for all editors, and has been doing so since before some people in this thread were born. There's a reason that very specific example is given at Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns § Across-the-board practices. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it, thanks. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am I missing something on the 2022 diff? That appears to have been a legitimate correction as the rest of the article used "she"; the subject doesn't appear to have changed genders at any point. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The 2020 hate group removal needs context. The removal seems to be because the content is directly sourced to the SPLC. Quite a few editors question if the SPLC should be used for wiki voice statements of fact. When presenting the changes it would be best to also present the reason why as in this case it seems to be a sourcing issue. Springee (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, the 2020 removing fictional information sourced to the NYT also should have had context. It was removed from the lead while a nearly identical block of text exists in the controversy section. Uncle G shows it as if this was outright removal of content from the article vs a dispute if 50% of the negative content from the article's controversy section should also be in the lead. Untimely people may not agree with the difs but the two I've looked at seem like changes a reasonable, good faith editor might make. Springee (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That doesn't change the fact that they claimed the information was "fictional" when it was not. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      or that they referred to individuals exercising their first amendment rights to assemble and protest as "terrorists." you consider that defensible @Springee? Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Simon, perhaps it would be best to ask them but they did open a talk page discussion that appears consistent with part of the removal, a part that isn't in the current lead for what it's worth. Springee (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't feel a need to ask them considering the evidence presented. It's clear their beliefs regarding trans people have skewed their editing behaviour irreparably. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    bludgeon

    [edit]

    officially requesting that User:Ergzay to wp:dropthestick and stop wp:bludgeon all those who disagree and allow the discussion to be conducted propperlyBejakyo (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So I'm not even allowed to defend myself when people try to claim I did something I did not do? What is this really. Ergzay (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    something I did not do?
    here is you calling one user a child abuser, here is you calling a seperate user a child abuser.
    beyond getting sidetracked, if you want to excuse your actions then do it the main section, not the survey section. per bludgeon, if you're so convinced that your right then your points will speak for themselves. Bejakyo (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    _BECAUSE_ they came to _MY_ talk page attacking me and calling me a bigot for _reasoned_ political support that a _majority_ of Americans hold. I really don't get what's going on anymore. Nothing I did was unprovoked and out of nowhere. Ergzay (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As being called out for bigotry regardless of it upsets you or not does not warrent describing numerous other editors as sexual criminals. YFNS clearly layed out the fact that such a callout was not unprovoked, regardless of if you think a number of some people in a single country agree with you Bejakyo (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bejakyo Seriously, why can't you be accurate. I did not call anyone a "sexual criminal". I did not call anyone a sexual abuser. This is frustrating that you keep escalating the terminology. Ergzay (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've very plainly been calling multiple editors child abusers due to their good faith edits regarding GENSEX and attempted to justify doing such for being 'a fit of rage' or because you were 'insulted'. This simply is not fitting conduct for wikipedia Bejakyo (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And furthermore the beliefs of Americans are immaterial. This isn't Ameripedia - it's Wikipedia - and we go by what reliable sources say, not the opinion polls of America. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have opinion polls on this subject in other Anglophone countries (e.g. Britain, India)? I am rather skeptical that, for example, Nigeria has more socially liberal attitudes on it. jp×g🗯️ 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s a shift in subject. It’s accurate that this editor didn’t call anyone a sexual criminal or make intimations about sexual abuse of children; only “abuse”. You should at least acknowledge this. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And to be clear I do not think I was "right" to call them supporters of child abuse. I do not think any of them are actual child abuse supporters. Not anymore at least. I don't want to deal with this and I want to stay far far away from the subject going forward. Ergzay (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    regardless of what you claim about if you see it as right or not, you still did it Bejakyo (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fairness, xe is far from the only person who has been replying a lot. I'm inclined to give someone a little latitude when there's a pile-on like this. Think how it would be for you if you were in this position. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal vows

    [edit]

    I apologize to anyone I've offended over the course of this discussion. I now think the words I used went too far and I should not have attacked people over what they said on my talk page. I've apologized directly to everyone who I wrote directly on their talk page and while I'm not asking for leniency because of that please at least know that it was genuine. The context is that I had recently watched a long form interview with the father and was feeling extremely saddened and outraged by how the father was treated and what his child was going through and I went and looked on the wikipedia page about the court case. I was extremely angered to see the completely one sided take that the article had and made appropriate edits. This was out of line and I should have followed the warnings in the in-line comments and on the talk page. I further went out of line making accusatory statements on the pages of editors who went after me for my edits. This was even further out of line. After a night's sleep and several enlightening discussions in the section of this page I now see I was in the wrong. I've been on Wikipedia for almost 20 years and I hope I can continue to edit. Given my personal upbringing and beliefs I promise going forward to stay out of any articles on trans subjects, especially as they relate to children, as I don't feel I can edit from an objective viewpoint. I hope everyone has a nice rest of their day, week and year. Ergzay (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This apology shows no contrition for attacking living article subjects, including a 12 year old girl, and attacks on a demographic at large re your claim that The entire concept of "trans children", especially when they are pre-pubescent does not jive with reality.
    This is further evidenced by continuing to insist that it's one sided to not misgender a young girl and that such edits were "appropriate" - I was extremely angered to see the completely one sided take that the article had and made appropriate edits
    And this apology seems to sidestep over accusing editors of being biased for being trans. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It also felt like they went out of their way to avoid saying "daughter" or "her" in the "apology" when referring to the guys daughter. Instead chosing to use "his child".
    I can't assume good faith after reading all the exchanges above in which I never saw Ergzay once refere to her as "her" hench why I feel this was just a subtle way to avoid correctly gendering LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I covered that sufficiently but just to be absolutely clear, I also think I was wrong to make that single claim of an editor being biased because they had a trans flag in their signature in the page's talk page. That was wrong. (I didn't do it to editors plural as far as I'm aware and your summary at the top doesn't include any beyond the one.) That person I also apologized to on their talk page at the same time I apologized on your talk page. I should not have said what I said to either of you. Ergzay (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't close topics you're personally invested in. was directed at me hatting your discussion.[328] It was the 8th bullet on my opening post here. What reason am I personally invested if not for the fact I'm trans? There's absolutely no other way to read that but ~"trans editors shouldn't close discussions about trans topics".
    And once again, absolutely no contrition for attacking the girl, making claims about her identity that contradict every RS (while refusing to provide any RS yourself), and making libelous and unsourced claims about her mother... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would aver the basis for the claim is because you often edit in this topic area and have outspoken opinions about it. jp×g🗯️ 07:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would aver that's a nonsensical explanation that goes far out of it's way to avoid the obvious answer - 1) his comment came right after saying another trans editor was highly biased for having trans flags in their signature, 2) editing in a topic area does not make you "personally invested" in it, and 3) the outspoken opinion that bigotry is bad also doesn't make one "personally invested" (unless one is the subject of the bigotry, in which case we are back to square one). Occam's razor applies... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If I decorated my signature with, say, the Israeli flag, it wouldn’t be beyond the pale (though it wouldn’t be helpful) for someone to say I have a bias of personal investment on topics relating to Israel. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, it's evident from your responses that it is an area you have a great emotional investment into well beyond your identity. This isn't to say that you aren't allowed to have that emotional investment, however, that a personal investment does exist. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    an area you have a great emotional investment into well beyond your identity - evidence? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Scroll up. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Should've guessed you wouldn't bother providing any. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming you genuinely cannot see it and this is a request for evidence in good faith, you need to be able to identify when you are in an emotional state for the purpose of this collaborative environment. If you would like me to articulate this for you, I will do it in a different venue, such as your talk page, as doing here would be disruptive. I'm not accusing you of misbehavior, nor am I saying you shouldn't edit in this area. As someone else put it, you have very outspoken opinions on this topic that can influence your neutrality. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the above thread has been sidetracked, I just want to note for the record that Ergzay's apology above and subsequent comments show absolutely no contrition for for attacked living article subjects and his attacks on a demographic at large such as his claim The entire concept of "trans children", especially when they are pre-pubescent does not jive with reality. When pointed out he didn't apologize for any of that above, he continued to evade the subject in replies. This is barely even half an apology. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk : Sukavich Rangsitpol

    [edit]

    Why the same person kept deleting his achievements

    In 1995, Thailand's Minister of Education, Sukavich Rangsitpol, introduced significant reforms aimed at improving the quality of education and contributing to national development in an increasingly interconnected world. The reforms, which began in December 1995, focused on four key areas:

    School Reform: Standardizing education quality across all levels, expanding access to education, and improving learning environments. Teacher Reform: Overhauling teacher recruitment, training, and professional development in both public and private schools. Curriculum Reform: Updating curricula and teaching methods to enhance overall education quality. Administrative Reform: Decentralizing decision-making and empowering local educational institutions, with a focus on community and family involvement. In 1997, School-Based Management (SBM) was introduced, decentralizing education management and promoting community involvement, with strong representation from local Provincial Education Councils.

    Key Outcomes: Expansion of Schools: By 1997, 40,000 schools had undergone reforms, improving educational access and increasing community involvement. Education for All (EFA): 4.35 million children from underprivileged backgrounds enrolled in schools, helping to establish the Education for All initiative. International Recognition: Thailand received the 1997 ACEID Award from UNESCO for excellence in education. UNESCO Findings: The reforms led to increased education spending, the introduction of English and computer literacy in early grades, and the establishment of free 12-year education for all children, as outlined in Thailand’s 1997 Constitution. Economic Impact: Following the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, education reforms played a key role in economic recovery. From 1998 to 2001, income in northeastern Thailand rose by 46%, and nationwide poverty dropped from 21.3% .

    https://books.google.com/books/about/Education_Economics.html?hl=th&id=wGHqEAAAQBAJ

    https://books.google.co.th/books?id=wGHqEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT92&dq=sukavich+rangsitpol&hl=th&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjL4pHqnbmMAxWid2wGHfb_H6IQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=sukavich%20rangsitpol&f=false

    ISBN: 9791222095110 Number of pages: 290 Published: December 17, 2023 Format: Electronic book Publisher: One Billion Knowledgeable Language: English Author: Fouad Sabry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:89A7:166D:2D01:7500:21C1:AD71 (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a content dispute to me. AN/I is a place for reporting user misconduct, and it's not clear who you're reporting here. Can you elaborate? — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Context here, page was semi-protected for 1 year on 21 March 2024. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang

    [edit]

    I just took a look at the page history of Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol, and it turns out that this whole poorly comprehensible, forum-y, spam post thing from the OP is something that has been going on for quite a few years now. Examples of talk page abuse: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5. Some previous IP addresses include 2403:6200:89A7:D762:8D10:E399:F008:FADB, 49.228.64.97 and 171.6.193.137. Alongside an abandoned account, User:สตาร์บัคหัวหิน. User:Paul_012 has been taking care of these abusive edits on that talk page for quite a while now. So it looks like we'll need to WP:BOOMERANG this through rangeblocks, semi-protection of that talk page, or perhaps an edit filter to take care of these types of edits. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So far there haven't been edits to the article itself, so a renewal of the semi-protection hasn't been necessary yet. Not sure about semi-protecting the talk page, as it seems to be a rather extreme measure, though I would support it if policies allow. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethnic Assyrian POV-push

    [edit]

    I would like to report user Surayeproject3 for repeated POV-pushing and edit-warring across multiple Wikipedia articles. This user has been systematically removing the term Syriac/Aramean or replacing and pushing it with Assyrian without discussion, despite this being a highly contested issue. In addition to the persistent disruptive editing, I have noticed a concerning pattern: nearly every article that I have personally edited is shortly thereafter vandalized by Surayeproject3. While I cannot directly prove that Surayeproject3 is responsible for this vandalism, the timing and pattern are highly suspicious and suggest a possible connection. I believe this warrants further investigation.

    On 20 March 2025, I issued a warning to Surayeproject3, asking him to stop edit-warring and to participate in discussions instead. However, he hasignored this warning and continue to push their own POV, violating Wikipedia’s neutrality principles.

    Examples of problematic edits by Surayeproject3 can be found in the following articles:

    Since this user continues to disrupt articles, ignores warnings, and refuses to engage in constructive discussion, I request appropriate action against Surayeproject3. A block or topic ban may be necessary, as he is using Wikipedia to promote a particular agenda in violation of the site's neutrality guidelines.

    Best regards, Kivercik (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • I haven't gotten into the weeds yet to determine whether this discussion is strictly redundant, but it's clearly at least related to the discussion about Wlaak fka User623921 above. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but there are clearly some issues here. This change to Assyrian is clearly not in line with the citation (which says Aramaic). This one says Syriac, not Assyrian. The rest of the OPs diffs are adding Assyrian categories when Assyria is not mentioned in the articles. The user says on their userpage that "My goal on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation is to increase the knowledge, visibility, and representation of the Assyrian people". Unfortunately, if you're going to follow your "goal" without actually sourcing these things, then that's a problem. Nominating an Aramean magazine for deletion, is typical. This is POV warrior behaviour, and regardless if the rest of their edits are useful, this sort of thing needs to stop. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Should this be its own section then? Merging with the above conversation could make it get lost. Also, I agree that this is POV-pushing. Conyo14 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A separate section does seem warranted after all, then. It may nevertheless still be helpful for some participants to refer to the other discussion, or at least to be aware of it. signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rosguill, I agree with youthat a separate section for this issue is appropriate. The persistent edit-warring, systematic removal of Syriac/Aramean, and the addition of Assyrian without proper sourcing clearly show that Surayeproject3 is pursuing an agenda in violation of Wikipedia’s neutrality principles.
      As Black Kite correctly also pointed out, there are multiple instances where this user has made edits that do not align with the cited sources. Adding Assyrian categories to articles where Assyria is not even mentioned, as well as nominating an Aramean publication for deletion, demonstrates a consistent pattern of POV-pushing.
      Wikipedia has clear policies that are being violated here and the user at least violates 4 of them, namely:
      • WP:NPOV (Neutral point of view) – Surayeproject3 is making unilateral changes without neutral justification.
      • WP:OR (No original research) – The user introduces claims that are not supported by reliable sources.
      • WP:DISRUPT (Disruptive editing) – The persistent edits create conflicts and edit wars without any attempt at discussion.
      • WP:NOTADVOCATE – Wikipedia is not a platform for activism or the promotion of a particular ethnic or political perspective. The user explicitly states on their user page that their goal is to increase Assyrian visibility, which confirms their lack of neutrality.
      Given these repeated violations, a block or at the very least a topic ban on this subject seems to be the appropriate action. The pattern of recurring vandalism shortly after my edits is also suspicious and should be further investigated. Kivercik (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks like I'm going to have to write another wall of text with linked diffs, but oh well. Anyways, I highly suggest that everyone involved read through the other ANI that involves this issue [336], as it contains a lot of points that are related to this discussion especially since Kivercik was indirectly involved with the content dispute portion. For much needed context, the community of Syriac Christians who call themselves "Assyrian", "Chaldean", "Syriac", or "Aramean" are currently in a naming dispute regarding what is the most appropriate name to call themselves, but they are all recognized to be the same people. Throughout the history of English Wikipedia, there have been previous and similar arguments related to the naming dispute, but per WP:COMMONNAME, Assyrian is the default that reflects the community, as well as their history and origins. Additionally, please note that "Syriac people" default redirects to the page for Assyrians, and the Arameans page is dedicated to the ancient Arameans and not the modern Aramean identity (this is a copy+paste from above but it details basically what is involved here). The ANI dispute above noted that a solution to the issues of content regarding the dispute would be to edit other articles that discuss Assyrians/Arameans to offer better inclusion, but as of now this has not been started (I personally would like to in the near future, though). For now, let me get into the points of this new ANI.
      On March 20th and earlier today, Kivercik linked several diffs to articles where he proposes I was pushing a certain POV and causing disruption and edit-warring. As a result, I have personally went ahead and manually expanded most of (if not all of) them with new information from pre-added sources as well as new sources, while adding or modifying content to better align with them.
      Of the articles mentioned, here are the ones that I have edited.
      • The user who was the primary subject of the previous ANI, Wlaak, put most of the same diffs that Kivercik linked on March 20th, of which he linked the following articles: Gütersloh, Isa Kahraman, Syrians in Sweden, Al-Jazira (caliphal province), Syria, Place name changes in Turkey, Haberli, İdil, Öğündük, İdil, Ethnic groups in Europe, Örebro school shooting, Shamoun Hanne Haydo, Ignatius Aphrem II, Södertälje mafia, and the naming of Sayfo/Assyrian genocide. I have went over my reasoning for all these articles and my edits on them in detail above, so please be sure to read through it and potentially consider looking through the diffs too (though I understand it may be a lot). Please note that I may not have reviewed all of the articles to expand them or change/add content.
      • I'm honestly at a loss for words that a disambiguation page is being used in an argument like this, but I'll address it here. I admit that previously, I made an edit on the WCA disambiguation page that had the Assyrian name, however I recently defaulted back on this and removed it while adding more entries to the page. The user Wlaak created a disruption over the inclusion of the label "Syriac", since it was included in the name of the organization and what I can infer to be his arguments that Syriac corresponds to Aramean. However, I earlier today added the organization to the WCAS (disambiguation) page which includes this label, so this should serve as a firm compromise.
      • Typically, articles on villages in southeastern Turkey that have a history with the Syriac churches are categorized under "Historic Assyrian communities in Turkey", and I did the same on Düzgeçit, Midyat. However, after reviewing the available sources on the village, I could find no mention of Assyrians/Syriacs, just Mhallami and population data. Seeing this, I have removed the category from the page.
      • In the article Midyat Guest House, the edits I made were renaming the page to add capitalization, and adding Assyrian categories. I expanded this article as well but there aren't many available sources for it; though the article mentioned an Aramean family with the last name Shabo, none of the sources directly used the Aramean label, only one with "Suryani/Suryaniler". This was also a point of contention in the previous ANI, but the word can be used to mean both Assyrian and Syriac, so I have included both labels in the article and have kept the categories.
      • For the article Deq (tattoo), I added the Assyrian culture category and WikiProject Assyria assessment since the article mentioned Syriacs (noting above that "Syriac people" redirects to the Assyrian people article). After Kivercik's post, I went ahead and expanded the article with content from the existing sources and new sources, and in relation to this dispute, I mostly found only "Suryani/Suryaniler". However, please note that this source [337] has a quote reading "Siverek lost its importance while Turkish ethnic groups and Suryani (Assyrian) people left the area", which affirms the connection between the two labels.
      • I have not reviewed the article for Mike Josef, but I did not initially see the "Aramaic Christian" label in the source linked for his ethnicity so this was an oversight on my part. I will look for more sources regarding him and edit the article soon.
      Kivercik is making the claim that I am systematically replacing Syriac/Aramean with Assyrian without discussion. On none of these articles were there any history of editing that could be considered edit-warring; according to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, examples of such involve tenditious editing and inability to satisfy verifiability, engage in consensus building, or take note of community input. However, the edits that Kivercik linked did not engage in any form of disruptive editing or Wikipedia:Edit warring aside from the WCA (disambiguation) from Wlaak's end. Kivercik is also stating that I am vandalizing the articles that he edits shortly after; however, looking through Wikipedia:Vandalism, there is no form of vandalism that I can correlate with my edits that would allow them to be classified as such. Instead, these were one-off instances of editing, and on most of these articles linked above, having the new sources and information added shows limited to no presence of the Aramean label, while Assyrian and Syriac are more frequent. Additionally, though he claims this to be a highly contested issue and I have refused to engage in discussions, Kivercik has never attempted to create discussions on the talk pages surrounding the content of these articles to affirm a consensus that could be agreed upon in their writing, instead just jumping straight into the talk page posts and ANI. I have been involved with discussions and negotiations regarding the content of these articles with the other user above, which can be seen on some of their talk pages (though I blanked the talk page for WCA (disambiguation) recently). Kivercik's claims of continuous edit warring are inaccurate, and my recent edits now fall more in line with the issue of Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:OR by adding new sources and content (both primary and secondary).
      It's also important to mention that Kivercik isn't exactly innocent in his own path of editing as he has previously been the point of concern in some instances. Allow me to detail:
      • Many times now Kivercik has appeared to employ the use of large language models/AI when drafting responses or blocks of text regarding articles in talk pages or elsewhere. This can be seen on his talk page [338], in several replies on the talk page for Arameans [339][340][341][342][343], and in his above replies. In a previous sockpuppet investigation against Kivercik (which by the way, he was investigated for being a sockpuppet), he also seemed to exhibit these AI tendencies, which I noted in the linked post [344]. It's clear that the use of AI is not allowed on the site, yet Kivercik has continuously appeared to have used it in his comments.
      • Kivercik is primarily accusing me of having an Assyrian POV, however who is to say that he doesn't have his own POV for an Aramean identity? He has already previously advocated for a separate article discussing Aramean identity, not to mention he edits on the Dutch Wikipedia using the Aramean label [345]. His account is still fairly new, but he had a gap in editing between January on the article for Salwan Momika until March 17th, when he started to contribute on the talk page for Arameans to support the argument for a separate article. The argument that Kivercik has his own inherent POV cannot be discredited in this discussion when it is apparent from his previous editing history.
      • Above I mentioned that Kivercik was investigated for sockpuppetry, but I added my points because I had reason to investigate potential meatpuppetry as well, which can be seen on the respective link. Most recently, Wlaak created a draft for an Aramean people article, of which the second edit was a reinsertion by Kivercik of a previous fork that was made by several blocked accounts [346][347][348]. The sock investigation also notes several edits on other articles which Kivercik restored that were previously made by blocked accounts, which not only bolsters the argument of a POV, but also shows a level of disruptive editing as well.
      Before I conclude, this discussion is certainly linked to the above with the other user (Wlaak) since it is about the same topic. Therefore, I invite other users who have participated in that discussion (@Shmayo @Robert McClenon @Mugsalot @Asilvering) to voice their opinions about the conduct and content issues present. It is only my intention to contribute positively to Wikipedia as I have done up to the present. This may unfortunately be a point of contention for a while, but Kivercik is prematurely accusing me and overexaggerating allegations of edit-warring, POV pushing, and violating other Wikipedia guidelines while neglecting recent developments in relation to this topic and having a POV of his own.
      By the way @Black Kite, I messaged one of the admins of the previous discussion privately on Discord with some concerns I had about the ANI case, and I figured I should message you about it as well since you're an admin and it is relevant to the discussion. I noticed on your talk page that you have email open, mind if I send you everything? Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      TL;DR Kivercik is accusing me of POV-editing, edit warring and vandalism when the edit history of the articles he links, as well as the sources I've included from editing them, not only show no signs of editing struggles but also affirm my previous edits by including new and reliable sources. Reviewing the pages for Wikipedia's guidelines that he linked also don't seem to affirm any of the points that he's made. Kivercik claims that I am replacing "Syriac/Aramean" with "Assyrian" systematically without discussion, but this hasn't been the case with other users and Kivercik himself hasn't previously made any attempts to engage in such discussions. Kivercik's actions on Wikipedia are also suspicious on their own right, including a potential use of AI, his own POV for an Aramean identity, and restoring edits that were previously made by blocked accounts Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Kivercik care to say anything on the AI accusation? I don't see any correlated use of AI, but they should advocate on that. However, Surayeproject3, why didn't you take action to the six points you made in your essay about checking the sources thoroughly before adding the categories/changing the races? Surely you'd know by now this is a very contentious subject that you're editing. Conyo14 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Surayeproject3, this is ridiculously long, I don't think editors are going to spend the time to read this long, long statement. Maybe you didn't have to address every single aspect of this dispute in one statement. Maybe hat most of this and offer a concise version of the most important points? Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: They did: diff - The Bushranger One ping only 09:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I thought that was a continuation, I didn't recognize it as a summary. But by the time I got to the end of the statement, I was just skimming. Liz Read! Talk! 20:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its quite funny actually that I'm being accused of using AI. Nah, this is 100% human rambling, no robots involved. But hey, if anything sounds too polished, I’ll take it as a compliment I think :) Kivercik (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite, @Rosguill, this DRV came up in the other ANI thread and is a pretty succinct look at the general problem, if you need one. -- asilvering (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Noticed that I was tagged above. Edits such as this [349] (example of linked diff here) is not POV pushing, in my opinion. I find it strange that users involved in the previous ANI discussion would continue to link to the article "Arameans" when referring to the modern group. The modern group with many alternative names - Assyrians, Syriacs, Chaldeans, Arameans, etc. - is currently described in this article. Shmayo (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you are probably referring to me, I'd like you to see the edits I've made on the villages, all are linked to "Assyrian people", it was a one time mistake from my part, which has now been corrected and not been continued for my past dozen edits.
    @Black Kite @Conyo14, sorry for the ping, but I'd also want to refer to my latests inputs in the dispute I am involved in above this one, Surayeproject3 has on numerous articles about language and Churches put a infobox linked to Assyrians. he has also fought me on the issue Black Kite raised, pushing a race on a people that is not supported/contradict the sources and is now using me correcting this issue as a argument for "disruptive editing". I am kind of new to WikiPedia, but from my perspective and short experience here, I think this is without a doubt edit-warring and POV pushing.
    Sorry for involving myself and pinging you guys, but I came to see that Shmayo was talking about me so I thought I had to come and share my input of this. Wlaak (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was not. See the link in my comment. Shmayo (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You linked to the ANI which I was involved in and I can only think of myself as having previously linked to Arameans. My apologies if you did not refer to me. Wlaak (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Aspersions by Kivercik against Surayeproject3

    [edit]

    User:Kivercik has made at least two loosely related allegations against User:Surayeproject3. The first is POV-pushing, and Surayeproject3 appears to be substantiating that case with an 1800-word reply which they correctly note is a wall of text. They have helped to make that case. However, the second issue is :

    In addition to the persistent disruptive editing, I have noticed a concerning pattern: nearly every article that I have personally edited is shortly thereafter vandalized by Surayeproject3. While I cannot directly prove that Surayeproject3 is responsible for this vandalism, the timing and pattern are highly suspicious and suggest a possible connection. I believe this warrants further investigation.

    They have not provided diffs, and I spent considerable time reviewing the history to see if I could infer what they are referring to, and I was unable to see any evidence of vandalism. Maybe I didn't spend long enough, but maybe I shouldn't have to spend hours searching. Kivercik is casting aspersions. Either they should provide diffs, or they should acknowledge that they were throwing spaghetti at a wall and strike the aspersions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify the situation, prior to March 20th, I had already posted a warning on Surayeproject3's user talk page, here, including the relevant diffs to highlight my concerns regarding the edits I observed. After March 20th, I provided additional diffs following the warning, some of which I have already posted here on the ANI page, please take a look at them again.
    • [350]
    • [351]
    • [352]
    • [353]
    • [354]
    • [355] (On the 3th of April, Surayeproject3 removes a just edited page by me referring to the people (as stated in the source) as Syriacs, only two days later Surayeproject3 removes the Syriac term once again and replaces it with Assyrian)
    • [356] (Once again removed Aramean and replaced it with Assyrian/Syriac and removed Aramean architecture and replaced it with Turkish architecture YESTERDAY 4th of April)
    I believe it is crucial that immediate sanctions be applied to address Surayeproject3's editing behavior in order to safeguard the integrity of Wikipedia’s guidelines! Kivercik (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, sort of, User:Kivercik. Apparently my question wasn't clear, although I thought it was. I said that you, User:Kivercik, had identified at least two loosely related problems. The first is that Surayeproject3 is pushing POV, such as by changing 'Aramean' to 'Assyrian' in an almost robotic fashion. I agree, and they replied to you with a long rant rather than reasoned disagreement. I didn't think that I was asking you for diffs about the POV-pushing, but you have provided more of them. The second problem was that you said that the articles that you edit are then being vandalized, and that you think that Surayeproject3 is involved in the vandalism. I looked for evidence of that pattern, both before I started this subthread, and after you replied. I don't see what you are reporting. Maybe you are describing their changing of 'Aramean' to 'Assyrian' as vandalism. If so, it is not vandalism, and that characterization is an aspersion. The changing of the ethnic description is POV warring, not vandalism. Do you have evidence, even circumstantial evidence, or are you throwing spaghetti at the wall? Throwing spaghetti at a wall is wasteful. Pasta should be eaten, not played with. Small children do both at the same time. You are not a small child. You have made a serious allegation against Surayeproject3 that goes beyond the POV-warring that we know about. Support it, or wipe the walls. Vandalism is a serious claim to be made seriously, not thrown out in passing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My report mainly concerns the systematic removal of terms such as 'Syriac' or 'Aramean' in official sources, which are then replaced with 'Assyrian'. In addition, I’ve indeed noticed another pattern, namely: nearly every page I have personally edited is shortly thereafter edited, often in a disruptive or biased manner (by removal of Syriac/Aramean and replacing it by Assyrian) by the user Surayeproject3. That is why I specifically stated that I’ve observed a pattern of targeted interference, as I stated in my report the timing and pattern (of Surayeproject3 his edits) are highly suspicious and suggest a possible connection.
    My impression came from a pattern I thought I was seeing, such as [357], [358], [359] and [360]. These are all pages that he had never edited before, but suddenly began editing only after I did, as can be clearly seen in the page history. So yes both of the two things have to do with eachother.
    Lastly, my intention wasn’t to make baseless accusations, but to voice a concern that seemed to be escalating, thankyou. Kivercik (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kivercik, that is not vandalism. Please see WP:VANDAL. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed: WP:NOTVAND. And making unfounded accuations of vandalism can be seen as a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I may have used the wrong term, I'm new to Wikipedia so still eager to learn more. Thanks for providing the WP:Vandal link it's clear to me now. I am referring to disruptive editing in this case, which is going on for several months now looking at Surayeproject3 his user contributions. Kivercik (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon I'd like to defend myself on your first point. While yes, me writing a long response may be annoying, it shouldn't be taken as evidence or confirmation of POV warring. Kivercik made claims that I felt would be hard to address in several responses because that would inevitably clutter the discussion, so I addressed them in one response. Please take at least a little bit of time to read over it as I address many parts of my editing there.
    Kivercik is linking an AfD for Bahro Suryoyo as a means to assert me having a POV, but this is not the first time I've started an AfD. I've started them on other Assyrian articles, including Jacob David [361], Assyrian Progressive Nationalist Party [362], Assyrian Medical Society [363], and a page called Radya Caldaya [364] just to name a few. The fact that I requested a deletion for Bahro Suryoyo is based on my reasoning on the AfD itself, and is just a coincidence based on timing (editing this post response, if you look at the page for AfD itself you'll see that it previously had an AfD years ago in 2008, so this isn't the first time a potential deletion was brought up)
    By the way, two of the articles were ones I edited after the ANI posting to include more sources and information, Deq (tattoo) and Midyat Guest House. The sources added in relation to Assyrians mostly used "Suryaniler", and one for the former even used the Assyrian label in relation to that, see these diffs [365] [366]. Almost all of them did not even mention Assyrians at all. For Midyat Guest House, Aramean architecture is not an established category. Kivercik blanked the whole of my edits under the guise of "Ethnic POV-vandalism" yesterday, even though they were reliable sources [367] [368]. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Breakdown of BRD and potential Holocaust Revisionism at Roman Shukhevych

    [edit]

    I'm kind of at a loss of how to proceed. Perhaps there is a better forum for this? I suppose this is a breakdown of the BRD cycle.

    I started making some edits to Roman Shukhevych after waiting a long time after a previous contentious discussion with Manyareasexpert. My edits directly cited publicly available sources, with quotes and page numbers often included. [369], [370], [371] Many of my edits have now been jumbled and reverted. I'd normally be okay with trying to resolve this via the BRD cycle, but manyareasexpert's behavior and discussion style has been particularly grating and disruptive.

    First, he is repeatedly asking me to read these directly cited sources for him. The talk page is clogged with walls of texts directly from the sources because I am doing his wikipedia homework for him. Almost all of these sources are free to the public. The reason I believe he is not reading the sources is that his objections keep shifting when presented with the text of the source. First, it was that not all "Nationalist Ukrainian diaspora groups, academics, and the Ukrainian government" have minimized, justified, or outright denied Shukhevych's and UPA/OUN's role in the massacres,[372] when it was made clear by reading the sources that I wasn't pulling this from nowhere, [373] manyareasexpert declined to engage productively, instead saying one particular source "does not supports added content," not elaborating on why, and demanding I remove it.[374] He then demands I make the changes needed to align to the sources, and indirectly accuses me of WP:SYNTH. [375] He didn't remove the sources, so he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it. So he just stuck my content near the bottom of the page [376] and restored his preferred wording. He broke citations while doing so. I am not sure how to engage with someone who repeatedly disregards my explanations for my edits.

    Secondly, I am deeply concerned he is engaging in Holocaust revisionism. [377] He asked to me to view a uncontested historical fact about the Holocaust (the shooting of Jews by members of Roman's battalion) with skepticism. Additionally, the source he provided for his claims, on page 364, says that the Battalion engaged in killings to on "take revenge on the Jews for the many years of injustices and crimes committed by them against Ukrainians" alleging, on page 363, that "the indisputable fact is that in Ukraine, over the centuries, a significant part of Jews collaborated with the enslavers of the indigenous population" [378] Manyareasexpert goes even further in his interpretation of the source [379], claiming they "had ideological grounds to destroy Lviv's Polish professors and Ukrainian Jews." I sincerely hope this is a lost in translation kind of thing.

    In conclusion, I don't know how to engage with this user and need some help figuring out how to engage. isa.p (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies, the references for the diffs are messed up. Fixed. isa.p (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that this isn't the first time within the past month that MAE's conduct related to this sort of topic has come up - scroll down here to just above the subsection break and from then on. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all clearly a MAGA inspired witch-hunt to silence my dear friend @Manyareasexpert note that if any action is taken against him all hell will break loose in the form of the mother of all sock puppetry and I will persist until sanity comes back. NotManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Blatant sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's victimblaming, where the opponent adds WP:OR and blames the opponent for fixing it.
    he doesn't seem to object to their validity, just the conclusions reached from it - you should not reach the conclusion, it's WP:OR - On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.
    It's actually the opponent who, responding to a direct request to provide a quote from the source they supplied Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500-Carlp941-20250402212300 , responds with the wall of text Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250402231400-Manyareasexpert-20250402213500 from different other sources, combined with WP:PA and accusations of "wikihounding" and one quote from the source in question, which do not support their wording.
    It's actually the opponent who provides misleading claims that "The source is plainly saying the Ukrainian government is engaging in whitewashing of the historical narrative" Talk:Roman Shukhevych#c-Carlp941-20250403175100-Manyareasexpert-20250403162400, which is also factually wrong, given that "Neither Stepan Bandera or the OUN are a symbols of the current Ukrainian government and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is not presenting Bandera or other OUN members as national heroes,[1] preferring to not talk about Bandera.[2]" - Commemoration of Stepan Bandera .
    It's the opponent who returns [380] misleading "records show that the Nachtigall Battalion subsequently took part in the mass shootings of Jews near Vinnytsia" , deleting the source which challenges the sentence, and supplying source which do not confirms the sentence, anyway. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    content objections aside, your fellow wikipedia editors are not your "opponents." I am really concerned about your approach to editing if this is how you see it. isa.p (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be wp:battleground. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The one who disagrees is the opponent, no? anyway, if editors are protesting, will use something different. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a collaborative project. Other editors are not opponents. Insanityclown1 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Having a disagreement does not make an opponent. We're all here to make an encyclopedia. Why would you think you have a rivalry? Tarlby (t) (c) 00:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In some languages, an opponent is the one who disagrees, not a rival. Anyway, duly noted, will use something different. Now, let's attend more serious issues of original research and misinterpreting or misrepresenting sources and possible PA raised above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only personal attack I'm seeing is you accusing them of victimblaming. Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you see why it is so hard to engage with you? My warning of wikihounding was interpreted as a personal attack - you pinged me for two discussions on the same page, I was warning you to not continue that behavior.
    On your second point, the goal posts have shifted again. Also, citing other articles on Wikipedia to make your point, especially ones you have contributed significantly [381][382][383] to, is poor form. Anywho, the page is about Roman and includes references to sources talking about a nationalist obsfucation of history. It is not about Zelenskyy's policy towards statues of Stepan Bandera and what he alone says about the OUN. You're not even objecting to my sourcing anymore, this is a red herring.
    In re: Vinnytsia, I was trying to follow the BRD cycle, but given that the original source was engaging in obscene holocaust revisionism and was not in English, I had to change tack. I used a high quality english source that referenced the same primary document but didn't include a tirade about Jews oppressing Ukrainians. I then restored the original language. I did my best to follow Wikipedia policy. I certainly did not misrepresent the Ukrainian language source when removing it - I quoted it directly in my justification.
    Lastly, you have not addressed my concern of Holocaust revisionism, that is troubling. isa.p (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get to say things like Now, let's attend more serious issues, especially when this thread was started about you. Everybody's conduct involved is open to discussion, yes. But Insanityclown1 is right - the only PA here was by you, and the concerns that arose about your editing in the last ANI you participated in (linked above) are being observed here too. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Opponent? Oh dear. GreatCmsrNgubane (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC) Comment by sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, this really might be an issue of English not being their native language. It would probably be helpful if one would give them suggestions for better wording. I think instead of "opponent" something like calling them "the other party" or "the reporting party" would do or just using the username of the person in question (although that might accidentally ping them, which they might not want). Nakonana (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd appreciate some non-sock-puppet input here.
    I'm not hoping for any kind of sanction on MAE, if it can be avoided. If the potential holocaust revisionism can be adequately explained, I think we can work on things. isa.p (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact they seem to have come down with ANI Flu doesn't help. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What nonsense is that, he has not come down with any flu, he just dosen't have the time to be on Wikipedia all day like you. NotManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    sock.... Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure whose, but blatant. Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I requested a CU against CmsrNgubane. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You were correct. Blocked half a dozen of their accounts. Girth Summit (blether) 09:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated wikihounding actions by User:Remsense

    [edit]
    You already started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding actions by User:Remsense, please continue it there rather than opening new discussions on the similar subjects. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I recently made an edit to the article Korean War correcting some misleading information in the article. However, Remsense (talk · contribs), who has previously reverted my edits on other pages over the past months and recently engaged in wikihounding by posting on a thread on my talk page, reverted it again; I believe this to be another act of wikihounding. I also previously tried to make an edit to the article that would justify my other edits per their version of the rules, however they reverted it on the grounds that it was a "passing mention"; however, I believe that this is antagonizing behavior on the user's part. - HawkNightingale175 (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are you opening multiple ANI threads? Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I reckon at least partly because they are a longstanding editor who has been editing on this site for many years and do not need to follow guides designed for users who are new to editing. Remsense ‥ 论 03:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd merge this with the other one, but frankly I don't know how and I'm to busy with off wiki activities and just generally tired from being in school 4 days a week that I can't be bothered to learn how to. Insanityclown1 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did they actually say that somewhere? Because if they did that is not on. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See above. Remsense ‥ 论 03:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [384] full context. Moxy🍁 03:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Caste-based Disruptive Editing by SENA$100pati

    [edit]

    SENA$100pati is persistently inserting "Brahmin" term into articles. The additions into articles Lead section are either unsourced or sourced via self-published sites.

    → Added "Brahmin" caste claim citing wiki link itself as the source.

    → Added "Brahmin" label using a self-published website.

    → Repeated same caste addition again via self-published source.

    → Inserted “Kulin Brahmin” identity without any sourcing.

    → Inserted “Brahmin” identity, unsourced.

    → Added “Maithil Brahmin” caste, unsourced.

    → Same as above – inserted “Maithil Brahmin”, unsourced.

    → Claimed it was a “Brahmin dynasty”, no scholarly source cited.

    → Added “North Indian Brahmin” identity to the empire citing self published source.

    This user needs to be stopped from making further caste-related edits. I request an immediate Caste-related Tban, or Temporary block for repeated sourcing and neutrality violations. NXcrypto Message 03:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @NXcrypto: Sanctions would be be pre-mature at this stage since the editor's (undoubtedly flawed) edits may well be noob errors by someone unfamiliar with wikipedia's sourcing and content policies. Note that all these edits were made in a single burst two days back before they received any notice or warnings about the problems with the edits. I'll drop them another note. Let's see if they still continue in this vein and then re-assess. Abecedare (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    At the article, 30 for 30 (song) this new user is linking an article that had nothing to do with the song or artists. [385]. They have then posted legal threats to their talk page. [386] and [387].

    I believe this might be an attempt to get an unrelated artist into the article. See ip edits [388] and [389]. Knitsey (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the reference they posted, [390]] Knitsey (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Block for legal threats, according to the message in the diffs they are contact with the foundation so the foundation can decide what to do with it. I will note for the record that if - and that is a big if - this account is unblocked they are going to need to post a coi and paid editing disclosure on their user page because the diffs claim the man works for the company in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @TomStar81. Knitsey (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Article in Question

    [edit]
    According to Washingtonian's article "The Still-Confusing Case of Drake’s Non-Appearance in DC Last Week":

    DJ Prince presents himself as a Suitland-raised music producer who claims—falsely, according to a Warner Media Group spokesperson, which says he has no affiliation to OVO Sound—to have signed to Drake’s label last year. The spokesperson says Warner Media Group’s legal team has sent multiple cease-and-desist letters to this individual, whom the company says has distributed fake press releases and created fake email addresses to connect himself to Drake and the label.

    This is probably more of the same. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did do a search before reverting but that link didn't come up, it can be a bit naff for searches in the UK. I looked at the usual music release sites and didn't see anything. That coupled with the ip edits plus Sony, going straight for a legal threat? Knitsey (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently DJ Prince managed to briefly fool Vulture too. The original version of the Vulture story that's cited in the Hiphopdx.com link had a paragraph about how DJ Prince was the tour's DJ. The current version now says: CORRECTION: An older version of this story included incorrect information on the tour’s delay. The information has since been removed. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oph, that's a little embarrassing. I must say, if little old Wikipedia editors can spot check a fake in less than a minute, it makes me wonder what sort of due diligence the completed for the article.
    Also, it has been going on for 2+ years? Knitsey (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it's been going on for at least five years. These are some other accounts of his:
    In addition to the ones already blocked by NinjaRobotPirate:
    I found these just through an insource:"DJ Prince" search, which only covers pages currently containing the text. There are probably many more instances that won't show up since they've already been reverted/removed. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps some semi-protection for the article will help? If this has been an ongoing issue forcing would be contributors to edit could help us establish if we are dealing with an SPI issue here or if it’s just one of those things of confidence things that’ll disappear once they can’t do it anymore. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure protecting this one article would help much, as DJ Prince has tried to insert himself into the credits on multiple pages (and could possibly target any OVO Sound-related page). At the very least I think CJGibsonOVO (talk · contribs) could be banned for impersonation/being an SPA? Iiii I I I (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done (note that's WP:BLOCKNOTBAN). - The Bushranger One ping only 18:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Misuse of talk page

    [edit]

    The IP address Special:Contributions/62.20.62.209 is misusing their talk page access while blocked. Please revoke it. Thanks. FlutterDash344 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done and extended the block on this extremely long-term vandal for another two years. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the number of simple TPA revoke requests that ANI seems to be getting, would it be worth having a noticeboard similar to AIV for that? QwertyForest (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a short-term surge, so not really. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Two IP addresses making disruptive or frivolous changes

    [edit]

    These two IP addresses need to be assessed on whether they are being used (perhaps by students?) to make disruptive comments on articles. I will try and also put notices on their talk pages if they have them. I have deleted their edits as they were unreferenced and "jokey" edits. 86.19.16.185 on [of feminists] 2 April 2025, inserted the name of someone in 21st century table, who is not known as a feminist and it had no link or reference. 203.32.27.143 onSt Paul's Cathedral, Sale 20 March 2025, wrote two epithets before the name of a Dean LPascal (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, LPascal, it helps if you provide links to the accounts you are reporting and also to the diffs/edits that you are concerned about, not just a link to the articles. Otherwise, editors have to cut and paste and most are likely not to bother with this and move on to other editing activities. You want to make it as simple as possible to encourage editors/admins to spend a few minutes looking into your complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Liz. I did want to provide more detail but I have difficulty using Edit Source which was the only option given to me to report this, then I had an editing conflict so it took me quite some time to write just that para and get it published. I had to leave some mistakes in there because I couldn't work out how to fix them in edit source rather than Visual. I have deleted the two messed up edits made from these accounts and put a message on the talk pages but I wanted someone more experienced to look at these IP addresses and their history of silly edits. Here's some links to their contributions if anyone wants to check them out.
    Special:Contributions/203.32.27.143
    User talk:203.32.27.143
    Special:Contributions/86.19.16.185 [[391]]

    LPascal (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Content blanking

    [edit]

    Wayn12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Wayn's been here for ore than a decade, yet recent edits include such basic enwiki flagrations as this clearly motivated removal, [392] (the user's previously also gotten in trouble for shenanigans at race-related categories) and this POV driven removal [393] in a sanctioned topic space. Both of these without any edit summary (this behaviour [inexplicable blanking of content without consensus that they probably didn't like] goes quite a while back if we go by the editing history).

    Thought of leaving a mere warning at the user Talk but see that there have already quite a few warnings multiple times over disruption and edit warring among other things. Since the user's been here for quite some time now and has even gotten in trouble for socking; bringing to ANI. Gotitbro (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Diff/1273428203 is pretty egregious. + editing to add the follow edits by Wayn12 and an IP following in the same vein. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Urgent Appeal for Review of Unfair Page Deletion & Administrator Misuse

    [edit]

    Urgent Appeal for Review of Unfair Page Deletion & Administrator Misuse

    Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

    I am writing to formally appeal the unjust deletion of our organization’s Wikipedia page and to report concerns about potential administrator misconduct.

    It has come to our attention that Wikipedia user Hootan Dolati, who serves as the Chief of the Media Commission for Iran National Front (5th Council), has been misusing his administrative privileges to unfairly delete pages related to competing branches of the Iran National Front, such as the International Branch under the leadership of Siavash Soltani. Similarly, (Redacted) (username: Mehrnegar) has also engaged in biased deletions.

    These actions appear to be politically motivated, aimed at strengthening one faction of the Iran National Front while suppressing the presence of other branches on Wikipedia. These facts can be easily verified through publicly available sources on the web.

    Request for Fair Review

    We respectfully request:

    1. Restoration and fair review of our deleted page based on Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and independent sources.


    2. Investigation into potential bias and misuse of administrative tools by Hootan Dolati and (Redacted).


    3. Neutral administrators to oversee this case and prevent further politically motivated deletions.


    Our organization is committed to Wikipedia’s principles of neutrality, fairness, and verifiability. We seek a fair resolution and guidance on how to prevent such issues in the future.

    Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your response.

    Best regards,

    Public Relations Iran National Front — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.132.198 (talk • contribs) 10:47, April 4, 2025 (UTC)

    There is no such user as "Hootan Dolati". Is this issue related to the English Wikipedia or the Farsi Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered removing this as a possible WP:OUTING violation but considering the only named account User:Mehrnegar exists but has no edits on the Farsi wikipedia, I guess it's not really an issue. As hinted at by 331dot, if this relates to something on the Farsi wikipedia, it's not something we can deal with here. Also even if it did relate to something going on at the English wikipedia, unless whoever you are accusing has connected their account to the people you're naming above, it's not something that can be discussed publicly, it would need to be dealt with privately either by WP:ARBCOM or WP:COIVRT. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's attempted outing, which imo should be treated the same DarmaniLink (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's outright outing. It may be on Farsi Wikipedia, but it's still outing on Wikimedia and I've revdel'd the name connected to the account. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cradleofcivilization disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

    [edit]
    User indeffed by Abecedare for continued disruptive editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This user appears to have been engaged in two campaigns. The first was that they wanted to create an article on Hostile government takeover, a song. This resulted in several moves, to move the draft into article space and to change the capitalization of the title, and at least one move to draftify the article. They then mistakenly filed a Move Review, which was the wrong forum, but seems to have been a good-faith effort. The Move Review was procedurally closed, but brought their efforts to my attention. There is now a deletion discussion of the article, which is a right forum to decide the content issue of whether the song should be the subject of an article.

    I then discovered the second issue, which seems to be conduct, on their talk page, which shows that they created 11 pages with nonsense titles created by banging on the keyboard. I asked them on their user talk page,User talk:Cradleofcivilization, whether they were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and instead of answering my question, they have ranted about the song issue, which will be decided by the AFD. I think that this user is not here to be constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also like to add that after trying to discuss with User:Cradleofcivilization, they have been giving almost nonsensical answers for their actions like if I kept my cool which I'll do from now on. I could of simply no index the original page and wait for the new page to become the canonical page and I was originally going to be given a fair shake now your just falling for propaganda[394] in response to asking why they created 11 keyboard smashing pages. After reading this I agree with Robert McClenon in that it appears they are just doing this to prove some kind of point. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 19:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    okay youre getting the order of events wrong. I never disrupted wikipedia to make a point the nonsense tittles were part of the original effort to change the title from Hostile Government Takeover back to it's original name Hostile government takeover to avoid redirects. this is campaign to defame me that has been occuring ever since I was rightly blocked by a user for accidentally writing the nonsense titles as a way of changing the page from Hostile Government Takeover to Hostile government takeover.
    Essentially I tried to change Hostile government takeover the page that was redirected to Hostile Government Takeover when cambridgebayweather changed it to sentencecase I tried to change it back to Hostile government takeover. in order to do that I tried changing Hostile government takeover to a nonsense tittle since at the time I believed I didn't want to replace anyone's page. I didn't know that was not possible. I then tried to change Hostile Government Takeover to Hostile government takeover but repeatedly failed. I should have used noindex on the original page and then let the new page populate in google search results. It would have taken 2 days but everything that happened simply isn't worth it.
    ToadetteEdit 8 days ago and I'm not entirely sure why you think this was the part that was in good faith. Youre pretty selective on everything. I believed ToadetteEdit had approved my page. my page did briefly show up in the api before cambridgebayweather changed it to sentencecase. that's not why I believed it was approved. I did geta notification at the time it happened. However there is no proof now.
    Anyway essentially LettersandNumbers used the opportunity caused by my accidental vandalism to dratify the page. I believed the page was orginally approved so I filed a move review.
    the incident that Robert McClenon doesn't understand because this subject is quite complex is that the user Cactus renamed a page in articles of deletion draft in order to get it sent to miscellany for deletion. I said I kept my cool when the user vandalized the page. it would have been very stupid to even look at the page. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was already punished for changing Hostile government takeover to nonsense titles so I could change Hostile Government Takeover back to Hostile government takeover. I am glad I was blocked at the time because I needed to stop doing what I was doing. However lots of people have used this as opportunity to attack me and then use personal attacks as a way of getting rid of the Hostile Government Takeover page. All I really want is to get it on Wikipedia and does meet notability requirements. However please read the first message as that perfectly explains the incident. this message unfortunately does not do that. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears according to the seccond accusation that hostile government takeover got moved to a talk page or something and it's page history essentially got tampered with causing me to be accused of something I was already punished for. but honestly I don't know anything about nonsense characters on a talk page. In the original incident I originally tried to change the page Hostile Government Takeover back to Hostile government takeover.
    I was already punished for changing Hostile government takeover to nonsense titles so I could change Hostile Government Takeover back to Hostile government takeover. I am glad I was blocked at the time because I needed to stop doing what I was doing. However lots of people have used this as opportunity to attack me and then use personal attacks as a way of getting rid of the Hostile Government Takeover page. All I really want is to get it on Wikipedia and does meet notability requirements. However please read the first message as that perfectly explains the incident. this message unfortunately does not do that. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is punishing you. You were blocked to stop you doing silly stuff which was harming Wikipedia not to punish you. In the future, if you're confused or unsure how to do something please seek help from more experienced editors at WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse rather than just doing silly stuff to try and achieve what you want. Sometimes what you want may not be appropriate anyway. The AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hostile government takeover is not to punish you, it's because editors don't think the subject is notable. There's a chance the subject is notable and it's simply that the sources haven't been found, if you'd left the article in draft space and allowed editors more experienced with creating articles to assess it they could have pointed out the problems for you without the risk of the article being deleted but since you were so impatient to move the article to main space, ultimately editors can only assess the current article and the sources you've already presented and that you and them uncover during the AfD. Again this isn't to punish you, it's just the natural result of you an inexperienced editor shortcircuiting the AfC process instead of using the process intended to help you develop an article which would hopefully survive AfD. IMO your best bet if you still feel you can developed an article is to propose in the AfD that the article is moved back to draftspace and promise it will not be moved it out yourself and instead allow the AfC process to proceed normally. (If someone else decides to move it out without going through AfC there's not much you can do, but at least you shouldn't be the cause.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the comments above it seems to me that this might be a WP:CIR issue. I don't think the user is attempting to do anything nefarious but they are seemingly unable to constructively edit. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If I am reading Cradleofcivilization's explanation correctly, then they have answered that they were not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. They were, for some bizarre reason, creating the files with nonsense names either to try to change the capitalization of Hostile government takeover or as an experiment in changing capitaliization. That was a very silly idea, because if they did not know how to change capitalization by moving an article, they should have asked for an explanation at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. If they were experimenting with capitalization or trying to change capitalization by creating nonsense titles, then they were being cluelessly disruptive. I agree with Esolo5002. Their explanation is informative because it shows a competency issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    [edit]
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP editor has a pattern of WP:COPYVIO - first time warning in 2023 along with RDVLs in March 2022, April 2022, May 2023, June 2023 & September 2023. In terms of recent 2025 edits, I removed a copyright violation at Krakoa (copied from a CBR article) & when adding a warning, noticed the IP editor had been previously warned for copyvio at Jean Grey in March 2025 (edit was RVDL). Spot checked a few more recent edits & had to tag the 3 comics articles with copyvio issues (Lilandra Neramani, Cyttorak, Power ring (DC Comics)); I've added a request for a contributor copyright investigation since the IP editor has been editing comics articles since 2019. IP editor does not interact with talk pages (including their own) & has not acknowledged the various copyright violation notices. Not sure how else to get their attention about this issue beyond blocking them. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an extremely stable IP - they've been editing on these topics since 2021. So there's no excuse for not noticing the talk page notices. I've blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Shared IP 204.116.211.52 mostly vandalism and unconstructive edits

    [edit]

    Recent edits are mostly obvious vandalism, or else AGF unconstructive edits. Talk page indicates that is the IP address of a high school. That scans based on the edit history. Referring to administrators for your attention. For any future users of this IP who may be contributing positively to wikipedia, perhaps they would be better off creating an account! All the best, --Tomatoswoop (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In all of 2025, this IP has only made 3 edits, so this doesn't qualify as an urgent problem that calls for sanctions. As far as encouraging users at this IP address to create their own registered account, I think you can leave a message stating this suggestion if there isn't already one present on the User talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Eminİskandarli; persistent personal attacks, WP:NOTHERE

    [edit]
    NOTHERE NO LONGER HERE
    Indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Eminİskandarli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    1. 11:42, 8 March 2025 shut up
    2. 19:17, 1 April 2025 It seems you're used to lying
    3. 13:44, 4 April 2025 I don't take you seriously, sir.
    4. 13:47, 4 April 2025 But you will not be able to understand this because you plan to destroy the work of others and delete their pages
    5. 14:10, 4 April 2025 Even though I'm telling the truth, a liar is being listened to just because he has rewards.
    6. 14:25, 4 April 2025 You are the last person who will teach me wisdom. You can shut up. (comment made in response for me asking them to adhere to our policies ("wisdom") WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS.
    7. 14:25, 4 April 2025 I said I don't take it seriously. Another comment in response to being asked to adhere to WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NPA.
    8. 14:31, 4 April 2025 😂🤣😄😀 Laughing emoji in response to receiving their last warning for their constant attacks, very mature.

    This just their behaviour. I could also get into their disruptive edits; them disregarding WP:NOTABLE so they can score easy victories or rather "points" for the faction they fancy. But I guess that is not going to be needed. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE, not caring about the policies of this site at all, hurling abuse as they please. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Having gone through the diffs, i am inclined to agree with your interpretation of events, and think that at minimum a short block should be applied to @Eminİskandarli so that they can take some time to think about how they treat other members of the project. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [395] their reply to the ANI notice sums up why they are WP:NOTHERE. Borgenland (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Childish response, but may warrant pulling TPA? 123.16.155.0 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be an overreaction ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk page misuse

    [edit]
    Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Special:Contributions/103.247.19.87 is misusing their talk page access while blocked. Please revoke it. Thank you. FlutterDash344 (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    TP revoked. DMacks (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP user 2600:1702:5B81:6B00:0:0:0:0/64 lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia

    [edit]

    2600:1702:5B81:6B00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Hello Wikipedia admins. I am reporting the IP /64 range above due to lacking the competence in english to edit the English Wikipedia. Before this AN/I post, a week ago I posted a stern handwritten warning over at one of the previous IP's talk pages, suggesting them to edit the Wikipedia of their native language instead and that they could face a block from editing if they continued their nonsensical, incomprehensible edits. And here we are today, these are the following next edits they've made since that message:

    Yes, I know it's been four days since the last time this IP made an edit. Buuut, I had been busy with other things in life the prior several days, and so didn't really have the time to keep regularly monitoring this IP user. Hence the late report.

    However though, I don't really have a doubt that they'll come back within the next several days, either to make nonsensical edits to other articles, or to do more so-called "edit requests" like this. So, I am suggesting that this competence-lacking IP user be blocked for a long-term period (e.g. 1 month) to stop wasting other peoples' time. Thanks. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like this editor is fixated on that one article. Since it’s protected for a month, don’t see much risk of disruption for a while. There are good edits in the past on that same IP, so I’d leave it be until and unless disruption recurs. Might be a different person on that range when protection ceases. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing and slow edit warring against consensus

    [edit]

    Newsjunkie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Newsjunkie is edit warring against consensus of a discussion, and appears to be slow-rolling her edits to intentionally avoid the 3RR brightline.

    Her edit history shows an established editing pattern of WP:REFCLUTTER on a number of articles, and in this case on Harry Potter, Wound theology objected to it.

    Discussion ensued and determined it to be a combination of WP:OVERCITE, WP:SYNTH, and improper use of WP:PRIMARY sources. Consensus seemed clear early on, and after Wound theology removed the edit in question, she immediately reverted back to her preferred state, claiming consensus wasn't clear, and proceeded to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. This was reverted to the consensus version,[396] which she then proceeded to revert a number of times: [397][398][399], possibly [400] She was warned both via user talk and edit summary not to edit war. So she waited a day and has now reinserted previously objected to primary sources which appears to be trying to force her original edits against objections while avoiding 3RR.[401]

    I primarily focused on the edit warring reverts and just a link to the entire discussion, rather than try to mesh the discussion timeline with the edits. If anything is unclear, I am available to clarify. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Further review of past incidents shows that abusing the 3RR brightline may be a pattern[402] ButlerBlog (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I waited a day to see if there would be further reply to my comments and there wasn't. The most recent version is significantly different than the earlier version to address concerns. There should no longer be any WPSynth concern and the primary sources are used to support pure statement of facts as is permitted and are also supported by the analysis line in the subsequent sentence . In the most earlier recent version there was also a statement supported by six different references and it is not more now. newsjunkie (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Waiting a day to see if there is any further reply to your comments" is not standard practice for content disputes, especially when the basic style guide is stacked against you. wound theology◈ 06:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also my earlier revision before the most recent edit was also an attempt to address the concerns by rewriting without the word "evolved" and already should no longer have had any WPSynth concerns. newsjunkie (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Title warrior and WP:OWN

    [edit]
    Blocked from article space for a month. Abecedare (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Realjohnpaul (talk · contribs) repeatedly edit warring on titles and short descriptions of South Korean officeholders past multiple warnings on talk and worse, making WP:OWN edit summaries that led to me filing an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AaronFresco for similar behavior. Posting here because no action continues to be taken there and they have continued to double down since report was filed.

    For WP:OWN see [403] [404] [405] [406] [407]. Borgenland (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For edit-warring, see [408], [409] [410] [411] [412]. Borgenland (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe a topic or temporary block would be appropriate. This has been going on for weeks now and it's just draining to deal with. They refuse to use proper edit summaries, they keep begging others to not revert instead of listening to feedback, and a degree of WP:CIR going on with numerous typos and grammar errors in most edits. Not helping, almost all edits have been pointless or harmful. seefooddiet (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked from article-space for a month. See block notice for details. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    206.174.65.103

    [edit]
    31-hour block applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP came to a controversial move request at Talk:Denali. There, they posted that Oppose votes are "cancer", woke efforts to rename famous geographical landmarks, and called Mt Mckinley The traditional White name. The entire !vote was designed to generate ire and controversy, not a good faith argument. At the same time, they called another editor's argument "vandalism". I removed both comments here as trolling/NPA violations. I did warn the IP, and they have since removed that warning. IP restored their !vote here and accused me of "manipulat[ing] the consensus count". Admin Zathras reinstated the removal here, endorsing it. The IP restored the !vote here, calling Zathras a "clown".

    IP is clearly NOTHERE and looking to WP:RGW, while loading comments with inflammatory language. I do not normally remove comments from RfCs or move requests, but I felt the racially-loaded traditional White name comment made it clear they were just trying to start a fight. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Block agree with this assessment, clearly NOTHERE. seefooddiet (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Problematic article creation from User:BigKrow

    [edit]
    BigKrow indef blocked from creating new pages. Abecedare (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User BigKrow has been warned numerous times for creating largely unsourced and empty stub articles, yet they've continued to ignore these warnings and have carried on with their disruptive behavior. I've already recommended they use their own userspace for creating articles, but they clearly have ignored my suggestions, and do not seem to care about the consequences of their edits. A block seems adequate per WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. CycloneYoris talk! 19:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't vandalized anything! No block needed.... BigKrow (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't comitted anything wrong.... So i write short.... So. BigKrow (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All articles, however short, need references. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Refs ok.... BigKrow (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you keep creating unsourced articles, and articles like this and this. That is not ok. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is about helping each other.... BigKrow (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is perfectly fine. BigKrow (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you honestly think those articles are "perfectly fine" to be in mainspace, then I agree with CycloneYoris on a block on CIR grounds, or at the very least a TBAN from creating new articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have to go ahead, but not indef ban, thanks!!! BigKrow (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaidnoway: BigKrow (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    CycloneYoris, have you tried communicating with this editor without using a template? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger: Yep. See: User talk:BigKrow#March 2025, where I even apologized for the warning I had placed above. CycloneYoris talk! 20:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    bruh block me if you don't want me here.... @CycloneYoris: BigKrow (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suffer from Mental illness by the way.... BigKrow (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Im not blocked on Simple English Wikipedia!!!! BigKrow (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean "Template"? BigKrow (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't if this user did or not.... BigKrow (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support block per WP:CIR, if it were just the creations I'd support a ban on article creation, but the responses here have only confirmed their CIR problems. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    bro im not dumb ok im 35. BigKrow (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lavalizard101: BigKrow (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately their response at their talk page only further highlights their WP:CIR problem. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Doxing edit needs removal

    [edit]
    Dealt with. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    It looks like an IP just libeled and doxed someone at Directed-energy weapon. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Deva1995 pushing English variety changes and violating MOS

    [edit]
    SOCKED
    Blocked as Marginataen (talk · contribs) sock. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Deva1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly ignored MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATERET despite at least four recent warnings from three editors. They have a clear pattern of pushing British English and DMY date formats into articles. They also often fail to mention the change in edit summaries and have never discussed these changes before making them. In their first 549 edits, they've:

    The main behavior change after the warnings seems to be a burst of editing yesterday to unnecessarily add {{Use American English}} about 88 times to articles that have a blatant connection to the US (along with some {{Use mdy dates}} templates).

    Examples:

    Or check any random 10 edits other than the US-centric ones yesterday.

    Despite saying they would stop, the pattern continues. While some of their template additions are technically fine, this kind of relentless campaign is disruptive and unhelpful. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Daniel Quinlan This looks very much like a sockpuppet of Marginataen who was community blocked in January. You're welcome. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's odd, HappyBeachDreams, you have only made 27 edits on this project and many of them involve User:Marginataen. What is your connection here? Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz Just trying to do the right thing for the good of the 'pedia. Don't shoot the messenger. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That does look just a little fishy, not gonna lie. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain exactly what makes you say that Deva1995 is a sockpuppet of Marginataen. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheLegendofGanon Do I still need to answer that? HappyBeachDreams (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring that the report was good after Daniel Quinlan shipped this to SPI, this discussion should be considered. Izno (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I suppose this one was direct and accurate, as opposed to baseless-to-marginal... sigh. -- asilvering (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno I took that advice very seriously and stopped saying things about Marginataen shortly after their community ban. I would never have mentioned them again if this topic hadn't been started. Perhaps next time I find myself here I can fix a spelling error or two. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Daniel Quinlan. I did to get above 500 edits. Banco Pan was bad and I have undone. United States also has US templates, despite "blatant" US connection, so it may be "unnecessarily" but do not see how it is disruptive. Please, I will stop. Deva1995 (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did to get above 500 edits So, WP:PGAMING. WP:XC has been accordingly revoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's fair. Deva1995 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Abused power

    [edit]
    OP blocked for self admitted block evasion. They can post an unblock request on the talk page of the IP where they were blocked by following the linked directions. See also WP:UNBLOCK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I'm user:YellowMonkey here. Yes, I haven't used my account since 2010. I've since forgot the password. I've been falsely accused of being a sock by 2 administrators User:Ganesha811, User:Izno with absolutely 0 proof. It's funny. Not everyone who disagrees with them is automatically a sock. I'm the IP here (2600:6c44:117f:95be::/64). SheryOfficial lives in Pakistan. I know because I went to his user talk page to check it out. I live in Wisconsin, US. How can anyone explain the fact that the /64 IP range is a real Wisconsin IP range that has been editing since 2022? Claiming he and I use the same language and phrasing is laughable. He used broken English while I'm much more articulate as a native English speaker.

    I'm requesting my current IP range to be unblocked. This is an absurd accusation due to a simple coincidence. I've promised myself to only use IP ever since 2010, and I've kept that promise. I've used various IP ranges since because I moved a few times. Last time I checked IPs are allowed to edit. 68.117.106.54 (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The recent user to consider here would be Thirurang Cherusskutty (talk · contribs). Looking at the contributions from the /64, it does seem implausible that it is the same editor. However, the content at Talk:Osama bin Laden (Special:Permalink/1283994918) does read like the IP is the same person as Thirurang Cherusskutty. It could well be an honest mistake. Of course, the CheckUsers can't discuss whether the IPs match, but the SPI doesn't suggest that was a reason for the block. 217.180.228.155 (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nationalists, POV and I Don't like it Editing

    [edit]
    NAC:Semi-protection should take care of this. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hello i want to report Croatian ip @89.172.250.9 for Nationalist, POV and I don't like it editing on Article Eastern Slavonia front. He is removing Serbian victory because he doesn't like it, he also removed that Serbs control Eastern Slavonia from 1991-1996 and removed that Croatia failed to abolish Slavonia in some operations, clearly pushing his POV, saying how source doesn't mention Serbian victory. I also want to report Albanian Nationalist @Diti04ZOP because of Yugoslav offensive on Kabash. The result that stated that VJ won offensive had 2-3 refrences, it had 3 refrences stating that Yugoslavia captured Kabahs and had 2 refrences how VJ captured Hospital and siezed weapons, he removed all that and put Kla victory(with only one source) only because one reference that was stating how Kla was defeated didn't say that, he also said that Battle of Ješkovo is page created by Pro Serbs or something like that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=125th_Brigade_(Kosovo_Liberation_Army)&diff=prev&oldid=1282171207 77.111.101.22 (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, 77.111.101.22, there are notices all over this page that you have to notify editors you discuss on noticeboards. Please post the appropriate notification on 89.172.250.9 and User:Diti04ZOP's User talk pages so that they can participate in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yea right, sorry i will do it now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/154.205.154.189Special:Contributions/77.111.101.22%7C77.111.101.22]] (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    77.111.101.22 you are blocked [[413]] and its edits [[414]], [[415]] and its edits [[416]] or proxy [[417]] Your edits are the same, you just change the IP. Everything is explained here on the talk page [[418]]. The war ended with the Erdut Agreement, as stated at the beginning of the article. In English language , and from a reliable book: Galbraith, Peter (12 October 2006). "Negotiating Peace in Croatia: a personal account of the road to Erdut". In Blitz, Brad K. (ed.). War and Change in the Balkans. Cambridge University Press. pp. 124–131. ISBN 0-521-86042-3.78.3.61.244 (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just edit and bring back edits that were reverted by Vandalist and Nationalist, I dont care if edit is created by blocked user or not the book that i again included stated that HV failed to capture Slavonia but i can bet you didn't even open the source. 77.111.101.22 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    77.111.101.22 Stop insulting me, that can only be you. You don't respect anything, not even reliable sources, you just write whatever suits you. I even found in some source that it was a Croatian victory, although the Erdut Agreement is sufficient. Read here Yih-Jye Hwang; Lucie Cerna (2013). Global Challenges: Peace and War. Brill. p. 123. ISBN 978-90-04-25326-1. 78.3.61.244 (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I included very valud sources, and no you can't say it was "Croatian victory" and fail to capture Slavonia in two operations and withdrew, no it cannot be victory. And Slavonia was occupied by Serbian forces until 1996 and late by UN and Serbian forces until 1998. So no it wasn't victory 77.111.101.22 (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're talking your own thing again, Wikipedia is based on verified books and sources. I didn't write this like you write all sorts of things on Wikipedia. Read what the book and historians say. I don't want to argue with you anymore, I'm just spamming here for no reason.78.3.61.244 (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi-protected the article, after reverting to the earlier Wrong Version. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks

    [edit]

    Satyabrat Shanu has been edit warring on Hindu rate of growth, and misrepresenting the sources because he believes that "Hindu rate of growth was a mis coined termed targeted on a special community".[419] No evidence exists for this false claim.

    Upon getting his edits reverted by me, he is telling me that I am engaging in "Fraud, Vandalism, Religious hate",[420] and that I "need a psychiatrist".[421] Capitals00 (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Satyabrat Shanu, this is a collaborative project where we must work together alongside people we disagree with. Assume good faith is an important behavioral guideline. Saying that another editor needs to be treated by a psychiatrist is an unacceptable personal attack and a violation of policy. Consider this a warning: Any further personal attacks may result in you being blocked. Do you understand? Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That should probably go on Satyabrat Shanu's talk page, not here. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Apep the Serpent God responding with blatant AI chatbot messages

    [edit]
    INDEFFED
    God of chaos + LLM is a poor combination. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Earlier today a new user, Apep the Serpent God, challenged an edit I had made to BanG Dream! Ave Mujica. The dispute they brought up has been brought to the Anime WikiProject talk page by Solaire the knight for a consensus here, but more concerning is their persistent apparent usage of generative AI to write their talk page comments. Their comments carry the stiff tone of the conversational outputs of an LLM, and appear to have been minimally edited before posting (if at all). Additionally, their messages repeatedly fail to properly respond to the arguments brought up to them, and show a surface-level understanding of Wikipedia policy which is often expressed in a contradictory and confusing manner. Their responses are incredibly over-verbose and difficult to keep up with, and quickly bloat talk page discussions, making it difficult to follow the conversation with other users. When the policy that their messages misrepresent is quoted directly at them, they fail to respond to the substance of the argument and persistently continue reiterating their previous arguments, with little substantive variation. When these patterns are pointed out and they are asked to desist in their AI usage, they assert they are being personally attacked.

    Diffs showing this behavior:

    GPTZero consistently gives an over 70-80 percent likelihood that their messages are AI generated. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it rather ironic and frankly audacious that you've chosen to create this topic when I am the one being repeatedly attacked and misrepresented, especially when I have refrained from escalating this to administrators myself. The irony is not lost on me, as it should have been you who was reported for your repeated personal attacks and attempts to discredit my arguments through baseless accusations.
    Let’s address your claims point by point:
    1. Use of AI: Your repeated assertions that I’m using an AI chatbot, and your reliance on GPTZero’s analysis, do nothing to invalidate the solid reasoning and Wikipedia policies I’ve presented. Accusing me of using an LLM does not change the facts, and it certainly doesn’t change the policies I’ve cited, which are clear and unambiguous. The substance of my argument is based on Wikipedia’s own rules, and not on who or what is writing the message. It’s laughable to think that your personal attacks on my supposed use of AI somehow invalidate the policies and reasoning behind my arguments. Wikipedia policy speaks for itself — it’s not about the messenger, but the message.
    2. Misrepresentation of My Arguments: You claim that I haven’t responded to your arguments, yet when I’ve addressed your points directly with clear references to Wikipedia policy, you continue to mischaracterize my responses. I’ve laid out five well-supported reasons for why the information should not be added, all of which align with Wikipedia’s core policies: verifiability (WP:V), no original research (WP:NOR), reliable sources (WP:RS), and the integrity of translations. Rather than engaging with these points, you’ve resorted to vague criticisms about "verbosity" and "lack of engagement," which are not reflective of the actual substance of my replies.
    3. The Matter of "Bloating" Discussions: It’s ironic that you would claim I’m “bloating” the discussion when I’ve been the one trying to maintain a level-headed, policy-based approach, despite your repeated attempts to derail the conversation with personal attacks and irrelevant criticisms. My goal has always been to keep the discussion focused on facts and policy. If there’s any bloating, it’s coming from unnecessary diversions — such as your repeated attempts to undermine my position by questioning my character and actions rather than addressing the actual policy concerns.
    In conclusion, I’ve already explained my position thoroughly, and I’ve provided clear policy-based arguments that directly address the issues at hand. I’m not here to engage in personal attacks or irrelevant debates about AI usage. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but the thing is, I have responded to your arguments. I informed you about the policy on WP:NOTENGLISH (WP:NONENG edit: yeah I kept linking to the wrong thing this one's my bad) sources and the exemption in the OR policy for translations, to which you responded,

    Per WP:V and WP:NOR, information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable by all readers, not just by those who read Japanese or are willing to trust an image or a personal translation. Without a reliable, published English translation or confirmation from a reliable secondary source, the material still fails basic verifiability standards.

    Which directly contravenes WP:PAYWALL, WP:NOTENGLISH (WP:NONENG), and WP:TRANSCRIPTION, as I've told you numerous times. You've also claimed that As per WP:V, all content must be verifiable by any reader, not just those who can access a Japanese magazine and can read the text, which is blatantly untrue per those same policies. I mentioned to you that the notion that sources should be easily verifiable for free by anyone has been historically discussed and shot down by editors, and you said,

    As for Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Require_free,_online_sources, I agree that content does not need to be free or easily accessible. But it does need to be verifiable in accordance with policy — which means we still require either: A reliable third-party source summarizing the material, Or a verifiable, professionally translated excerpt.

    Which contradicts not only the WP:NOTENGLISH (WP:NONENG) and WP:TRANSCRIPTION policy sections, but also your own arguments. Is it "content does not need to be free or easily accessible" or is it "all content must be verifiable by any reader"? The lack of consistency here strongly suggests that you are using an AI, which would not be able to follow the overall context of the discussion, and thus would not maintain consistency of opinion.
    I have responded to your arguments repeatedly and level-headedly, and of course, I don't think you actually wrote any of this- I think you're just copy-pasting the output of a machine that has no clue what it's doing other than that you've told it to argue with me.
    I think this evidence all speaks for itself. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d like to address the points you raised and clarify some key issues based on Wikipedia's core policies. It seems there’s a misunderstanding regarding the application of WP:NOTENGLISH, WP:TRANSCRIPTION, and WP:PAYWALL, so I’ll break them down:
    1. WP:NOTENGLISH
    This policy advises against the inclusion of non-English language material that is not accompanied by reliable English-language sources. However, it does not prohibit the use of non-English sources if they are verifiable and accompanied by reliable translations. The key is ensuring that non-English material is verifiable and meets Wikipedia's reliability standards.
    WP:NOTENGLISH clearly states:
    "Wikipedia articles should not contain material based solely on non-English-language sources without reliable English-language sources."
    In this case, the material you’re suggesting must be accompanied by a reliable English translation or reliable secondary sources for verification. Without that, it cannot meet Wikipedia’s verifiability standards.
    2. WP:TRANSCRIPTION
    In the context of Wikipedia, transcription refers to the process of converting spoken language into written form, such as interviews, speeches, or audio recordings. The policy emphasizes the importance of accuracy and reliability in transcriptions to maintain the integrity of information.
    WP:TRANSCRIPTION clearly states:
    "Transcriptions should be accurate and verifiable, and should not contain original research."
    This means that if a transcription or translation is presented as evidence, it must meet accuracy standards and be verifiable. Personal translations or screenshots, which are not independently verified, cannot be considered reliable without proper sourcing.
    3. WP:PAYWALL
    This policy addresses the use of sources that are behind paywalls. It acknowledges that while some reliable sources may not be freely accessible, their content can still be used on Wikipedia if appropriately cited. The policy suggests that editors should not reject reliable sources solely because they are not freely accessible.
    WP:PAYWALL allows the use of reliable sources that are behind a paywall, but that does not mean that screenshots or unverified fan translations can be accepted. The policy stresses the importance of reliable sources, not just access to the material itself. In this case, a screenshot or fan translation, which lacks independent verification, does not meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards.
    You can access a paywalled source, but unless it's a reliable third-party publication or verified professional translation, it does not meet the standards of verifiability or reliability required by Wikipedia.
    Addressing Misinterpretations:
    You’ve suggested that insisting on verifiable English translations or secondary sources contradicts these policies. This is incorrect. Requiring reliable, verifiable sources aligns with Wikipedia's core principles of verifiability and reliability. We cannot accept unverified fan translations or screenshots as reliable sources, as these are prone to misinterpretation and lack independent validation.
    The emphasis on providing verifiable, reliable sources — whether original or translated — is consistent with Wikipedia's core principles. Misapplying policies like WP:NOTENGLISH, WP:TRANSCRIPTION, and WP:PAYWALL does not change the fundamental requirement for verifiable and reliable sourcing. It is critical to ensure that information on Wikipedia is backed by sources that can be verified and are considered reliable by independent, third-party standards.
    To summarize, the rules of Wikipedia remain clear, and ensuring proper sourcing, whether translated or not, is necessary to maintain the integrity of our articles. Without a reliable secondary source or professional translation, this material simply cannot be included. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apep the Serpent God, I ran your message through GPTZERO, a website which (most of the time) acurately guesses whether a piece of text is generated by artificial intellegence or not. It was almost 100% certain you are using AI / LLMs to communicate. — EF5 13:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had the time I'd start a RFC simply outright banning AI/LLM, with immediate block for anybody who uses it (whether in article space, talk pages etc.) GiantSnowman 13:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I used my eyes and can confirm these textwalls bear the hallmark of chatbot output. It's disruptive to make people respond to walls of machine generated text.Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @EducatedRedneck @CX_Zoom @EF5 @Simonm223 @GiantSnowman
    You are not administrators, and your personal claims about my use of AI do not invalidate the actual Wikipedia policies I’ve cited. The focus should remain on the policies themselves — which clearly support my stance. So your accusations about AI usage change nothing about the validity of the arguments I’ve made, which are grounded in Wikipedia’s own rules. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As you all can see, Apep seemingly can't even ping people or wikilink to the policies they're citing. It's very obvious that they are doing very little other than copy pasting between browser windows. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no obligation to ping users or wikilink every policy name — these pages are publicly accessible to anyone who wishes to verify them. Shifting focus to formatting nitpicks is just another deflection from the policy-based arguments I’ve laid out.
    Furthermore, your continued attempts to rally others into accusing me of using AI, along with these dismissive remarks, are veering into harassment. If this behavior continues, I will have no choice but to escalate the matter through the appropriate channels. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This… is the “appropriate channel”? EF5 13:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you haven't bothered to write your own arguments then you don't actually know that. You are effectively putting faith that an overglorified update to Clippy has accurately interpreted policy for you. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that the assertion that paywalled or non-english sources are unreliable for the reasons of being paywalled or non-English is non-compliant with Wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you missed that GiantSnowman literally is an administrator. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether I’m an administrator doesn’t matter. EF5 13:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. GiantSnowman 13:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ASG, I note you have not said one way or the other whether you use AI in you responses. Please unambiguously do so now. Per WP:LLMTALK, your alleged use of AI is not an irrelevant debates about AI usage. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. It is very much evident that you are, in fact, using LLMs to make your points. It is not a personal attack. The exceptionally long essays, language style, and use of emdash in a talk section pretty much gives it away. All they are asking is that you need to read the policy pages and make your points in your own sentences. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Apep the Serpent God, let me address some fundamental misunderstandings you have about English Wikipedia policies. You keep on referring to WP:NOTENGLISH when dismissing translations of references. WP:NOTENGLISH is about dealing with translating foreign language in articles, not in sources. The policy you need to look at is WP:V, specifically WP:NONENG, which states that English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance, and does not have any requirement for professional translation.
    You also don't understand WP:PAYWALL, which states Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries...If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf ...
    Your use of policy to reject those references is incorrect. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, I kept linking WP:NOTENGLISH when I meant WP:NONENG. This one's my mistake. In fairness, I have the capacity to make human errors and Apep had my head spinning trying to keep pace with their nonsense. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Apep the Serpent God: - please answer this question in one word: do you, or have you recently, used AI/LLM to write your responses here? Please note that your answer will determine whether or not you are blocked. GiantSnowman 13:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. To clarify, while I may use tools to help organize or reference Wikipedia's own policies more clearly, every response I post reflects my own intent and understanding of the discussion. I am fully responsible for the content I contribute, and my focus has always been on adhering to Wikipedia's core guidelines — not on the method of composition. Apep the Serpent God (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whelp, that's not one word. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, thank you for being honest. Secondly, please do not use AI/LLM to write your posts again. GiantSnowman 13:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Apep the Serpent God: Can you now confirm that you will engage in discussion on talk pages without using LLM text in discussions, and that you will directly read and comprehend the policies relevant to the matter before doing so, and respond in your own words to any questions or comments? silviaASH (inquire within) 13:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apep the Serpent God, since you seem to care whether or not people are administrators, let me confirm for you that I am an administrator. Attempting to communicate with actual human beings by posting incompetent TLDR blather created by brainless robots speaking AI-ish is a waste of our most precious commodity, the valuable time of volunteer human editors. That's disruptive editing. Will you stop now? The alternative is that you could be made to stop with a block. Cullen328 (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that this user was seemingly very chatty right up until I asked them to explicitly confirm that they would not do this anymore, I have no confidence that they will stop. I've had enough of my time and energy wasted by them already and if they do not explicitly respond in their own words within a reasonable amount of time I would support instituting a preventative block and seeing if they can figure out how to write their own unblock request from scratch. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that their prior replies in this thread alone are indication that their ability to engage with English language written discussion other than by just putting blind faith into an LLM is nonexistent. A block seems overdue, and the only reason people seem to be hesitating is that people seem to have wanted to at least give some credit for admitting that they were using an LLM. signed, Rosguill talk 01:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill, I'm with you. -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting that the only edit the user has made since saying this was the removal of all my warnings and attempts to engage them in discussion about this issue from their user talk page. Looks to me as if they're playing possum. silviaASH (inquire within) 01:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was holding off blocking to give them a chance to respond to the request for assurance they would no longer use LLMs, on the chance they were simply logged off for the day. The talk page blanking without any further response has banished that hope, so I've blocked (WP:DE seems close enough). - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    PA on User talk:ShirtMonopoly

    [edit]

    I believe this is absolutely unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Drmies, agreed. I said the same thing two sections above at WP:ANI#Personal attacks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What do people have against psychiatrists and their patients? Both of these were definitely intended as personal attacks. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given them a One And Only Warning regarding it. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User doesn't seem to get it and slow edit warring

    [edit]

    User:KLIFE88 persists in restoring the same sentence to the Übermensch World Tour despite containing grammar mistakes. After informing her that she should not rely on other editors to clean up after her, she continues to restore her edit to the point of slow-motion edit warring, which is just unacceptable. Additionally, the user has accused me of bad faith and "vandalism" on multiple occasions for reverting her edits, despite my explanation on her talk page from 3 years ago that she is misusing the term. However, she continues to disregard the warning and continues to use the term incorrectly up to today. The user's behavior leads me to believe that she just does not get it. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that Talk:Übermensch World Tour is empty. Both of you should use it, and discuss things there without unwarranted charges of vandalism, rather than in edit summaries or user talk pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Phil Bridger. When you are in a dispute about content on an article, you should start a discussion on the talk page BEFORE coming to ANI. ANI is the last stop after other forms of dispute resolution have been tried and failed. That doesn't seem to have happened here. It almost always helps to draw in other editors to a discussion where it has become "Me vs. You". Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spwanaju

    [edit]
    Blocked without TPA. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Appears to be harassing another new user (User:L$Aiden$L):

    • [427] Blatant personal attacks. You, though, you will never get to be an admin. And when you die, all the Wikipedians who left you insincere platitudes will be reveling in their cruelty.
    • [428] "I look forward to making sure that Donald Trump is portrayed as negatively as possible, I know I’ll be welcome".
    • Already been given a level 4 warning for a now-oversighted edit at WP:TEAHOUSE.

    Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I see they have been blocked, however the mass pinging is still continuing so I would suggest TPA be revoked as well. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vanderwaalforces - Threats, dismissals of Wikipedia policies, false claims of neutral identity, and a pattern of intentionally misleading use of sources to promote ethnic exceptionalism

    [edit]

    On the 21st of march, @Vanderwaalforces added the [429] POVtag to two pages, the Oduduwa[430], and Oranmiyan[431] pages, two highly deified figures in Yoruba history. Around two hours passed the time of his first tag, and he did not open up any discussion to talk about why he tagged the pages, so following WP:driveby, I removed the tags with my reason clearly stated[432]. After reminding him about the guidelines, he pinged me on the Oranmiyan talk page typing “Please don’t piss me off”[433]. I couldn't tell what angered him, or what action he would take if he were to be “pissed off”, but I didn't take this threat seriously because he finally explained his reason for the tag. In his opinion the content on the pages were “Yoruba POV thrash”,[434] and he wanted to push a fringe theory about the figures that is widely dismissed by the academic community for its inauthentic ethnically motivated revisionism (to basically make these Yoruba deities ethnically edo).[435] He further stated in his words that "it is not Wikipedia’s job to prefer to use some “consensus” sources of historians which I do not know how to even comprehend".[436] This came as a surprise to me because I was under the impression that he was a seasoned editor, yet by his statement, he basically admits that the articles he’d written on these topics until that point did not much account for the Wikipedia:Verifiability of the sources used. After I reminded him severally that his plans were in conflict with the policies,[437] he no longer replied to the discussion and left off the pages.

    Cue April 3rd. Seeing that 3 sock accounts meddling in similar topics had been blocked on April 1st[438], I went through their edits and restored them to the pre-sock versions.[439] I noticed one of the pages I restored, List of the Ogiso, was using a self published source for content verification regarding an unacademic backdated kings list. I went through the talk pages of the related articles and saw that there was already a consensus agreeing to use sources for the academically supported date range of the 10th-12th centuries, between @Kowal2701 @Oramfe and @History Of Yoruba and @Vanderwaalforces [440], so I went through the topic history to see when the non academic backdated list was added, and I saw that @Kowal2701 had added it some days after the consensus, but he was unsure of whether it belonged there or not.[441] Noticing its breach of WP:SPS, I removed the self published source and it’s contents, making sure to explain the reason.[442] The next thing I knew, I received my second and what seems to me a rather sinister threat from Vanderwaalforces. “do not start what you cannot finish” he said.[443] He proceeded to revert my edit without any other reason given, and later changed the source from one self published book, to the original self published book that contained the non academic backdated list.[444](Extra confirmation that it is indeed self published) It's then I suspected that his dismissal of guidelines was intentional, and his likely aim was to push non-academic POVs of these topics on Wikipedia.

    In the earlier articles that he gave a POV tag, he tried to pose as a neutral editor with no relation to Yoruba and Edo/Bini people,[445] but going through his talk page history(that gets deleted every month by a bot), his deceit is revealed in this conversation he had with @Oramfe, where expresses knowledge unique to binis of a local river. [446]. To me there isn't an issue if a person with Edo affiliation deals with a lot of Edo related topics. It is very suspect though, for him to claim neutrality when he is not, in order to speak from a place of authority just to better push his jingoistic desires on those topics.

    I went through articles he has been mostly responsible for making, to doublecheck, and sure enough, there were numerous Benin kingdom and Ogiso related articles making exceptional claims[447] that either weren't supported by multiple high-quality sources(as required), any source at all, and sometimes just almost entirely made up of self published sources(some with the author owning the publisher). These are topics I would have liked to address individually on those talk pages, but after noticing, to my shock, that a few were rated "good articles", I figured I should take his threats from earlier seriously and create this ANI.

    This isn't a content dispute, but for the accusations I have made it is necessary that I give an example and a break down of how he got away with false and exceptional claims in this[448] specific "good article". He exploits that the lead of an article doesn't have to contain a source for a claim, so long as the claim is later sourced in the main body(as per WP:LEADCITE). So what he will do is that he will make exceptional claims in the lead, but when it's time to provide a source in the main body, he will change the claim to better match what the source says. As a result, the claim in the body is accounted for(sometimes it's actually not), but the exceptional claim in the lead remains "protected" from dispute by citing WP:LEADCITE to people who aren't intimately familiar with the topic. Here is a breakdown of a small section of this article.

    This is what he says in the lead

    Ehengbuda expanded the empire's territory westward and eastward, solidifying control over tributary states like the Oyo, Ekiti and Nupe.

    To any normal reader, what this means is that Benin kingdom subjugated the Oyo empire, Ekiti and Nupe people, and forced them to pay tribute to Benin kingdom.

    This is what he says in the body

    During his reign, Oba Ehengbuda embarked on a series of military campaigns with the aim of expanding the Benin Empire's territory and influence. One of his most notable victories was defeating a mounted army sent by either the Oyo Empire or the Nupe people. This victory established the Benin-Oyo boundary at Otun in the Ekiti country.[s1][s2] He also secured tribute from several Yoruba rulers.[s3]

    From the lead to the body, Oyo and Nupe has changed to Oyo or Nupe, and there are no more claims of them being tributary to Benin. Instead, "several" Yoruba rulers paid tribute.

    This is what the sources cited ACTUALLY say

    ( [s1] - Robert Sydney Smith p. 40-41) (It literally says nothing about Oyo and the Nupe fighting Benin nor either of them being tributary to Benin)

    ( [s2] - Egharevba p. 31) - "He led the Bini troops against the Oyos and after many battles a treaty of peace was made which set the Benin and Oyo boundary at Otun in the Ekiti country."

    ( [s3] - Egharevba p. 32) - "A young prince named Osogboye, heir to the stool of Owo, was sent to Benin City by the Owos to be trained and brought up by the Oba.[...] A year later Osogboye was made Owa of Owo[...] Osogboye was cautioned to continue his tribute to the Oba"

    The sources say nothing about a Benin "victory" unlike what is stated in the article, it even implies that Benin was the initiator and had to settle for a truce of peace instead. Again, nothing is said about Oyo or Nupes paying tribute to Benin. The claim in the body of several yoruba rulers paying tribute is in the source only stated as the ruler of Owo kingdom.

    Aside from the fact that just 1 non-neutral source is used to justify these claims (instead of multiple high quality sources as required for exceptional claims) This is just one example out of plenty of misleading ways that Vanderwaalforces bends around Wikipedia policies to push an extremely inflated perception of the Benin/Edo locality. I can continue, but I suspect to this is already very long for an ANI.

    By his statement in this edit on his "Good Article"[449] saying

    I don't know how you think that an artice that passed GA review used unreliable sources

    I believe Vanderwaalforcers uses his 'active wikipedia presence' to intimidate editors from correcting articles that he himself knows he is being deceitful about, I have noticed this a lot in Benin kingdom related articles, but I do not know if it extends further. In all, it is troubling that he uses threats and a false image of neutrality, to dismiss policies for what I believe is his goal of promoting Edo exceptionalism. Sohvyan (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Evaluating the POV and source representation issues will require further reading, but at minimum, this driveby tagging followed by hostility like "please don't piss me off" (as the beginning of a discussion) and "do not start what you cannot finish" is completely unacceptable, and calling articles "Yoruba POV trash" without strong resoning is also out of line.
    If this discrepancy between source and content is as you say, that's also very serious. I haven't read it yet. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Compare:
    (1) Ehengbuda expanded the empire's territory westward and eastward, solidifying control over tributary states like the Oyo, Ekiti and Nupe. (quoted above), and
    (2) Clotharperic was known for his military conquests, having expanded his kingdom's borders through successful campaigns against neighboring peoples. (thanks to mathglot for programming ChatGPT to write that made-up garbage).
    Narky Blert (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I had so completely forgotten about that comment of mine at WP:AN Archive 1125 (and also missed the wikilink in your message) that I was wracking my brain for what this was about, thinking you were perhaps accusing me of using LLM in Wikipedia, something which is anathema to me; but had I forgotten something? I had to read the archived message to recall that it was an LLM experiment I ran, where I was outing Chat GPT as not only an inventor of fake citations, but also, as in this case, the use of real citations to cite the military exploits of a Frankish king that I had made up out of whole cloth. Thanks for the memory! Mathglot (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was such a good bad example that I bookmarked it. Narky Blert (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At List of the Ogiso one of the sources you removed was published by the University of Hamburg, but the Peavy one was self-published. Something being against academic consensus isn’t reason to remove it, the list was there per WP:NPOV, we could’ve found a better source for the list itself. Kowal2701 (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The source from the university of hamburg was not in support of the self published list, it only mentions that it exists. It provided a different hypothesis for Ogiso altogether starting from a much later date, which was not a list, and therefore irrelevant to the artcle. And you did not say the self published list was there per WP:NPOV when you posted it, which wouldn't make sense anyway because there is nothing non neutral about the academic dates. There is no "better source for the list" when the original is from a self published source. Sohvyan (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV just states that POVs present in RSs should be represented proportional to how much they appear in sources, the POVs themselves don’t have to be neutral. Can’t comment on the original source as I couldn’t find it. Potentially you could argue on WP:FRINGE, but Ekeh uses the 40 BCE start date as well (so does Digital Benin), imo it creeps in as a minority viewpoint. Would’ve put stronger criticism if I could find some Kowal2701 (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV requires reliable sources, the fact that the author did not describe how the 40BCE dates were arrived at in his self published book will always make it unreliable, but regardless, this is a technical discussion for a talk page. This ANI is about the behaviour of Vanderwaalforces I posted above. Sohvyan (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • For ANI, this is a very long and complicated complaint for editors who frequent this noticeboard to digest. I note that Vanderwaalforces hasn't edited for 10 hours and hasn't had a chance to respond to these accusations. I encouraged them to do so when they logged back on the project. But honestly, Sohvyan, these are complex claims for editors to evaluate. The personal attacks, on the other hand, are easy to condemn as inappropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Sohvyan.
    Let me first say that I am not surprised you brought this up, but I am rather surprised that you were able to put forth these serious accusations. Before I will talk about my "don't piss me off" and "Yoruba POV thrash" (I will talk about that towards the end of this reply), let me first address "do not start what you cannot finish" and what I literally meant (sometimes I wish there was a way to put facial reactions to comments, but I guess that isn't possible); what I meant by that was that, if you were not ready to finish improving the page, then do not start it, especially in a controversial situation like this, as opposed to what you think is a "sinister threat".
    Let me briefly go into your accusations. It isn't deceptive to have my talk page being archived by a bot. You said that his deceit is revealed in this conversation he had with @Oramfe.... After looking at my conversation with Oramfe again, I could not see how this particular discussion logically aligns with your points, but I will not judge right away. You also went further to say ...for him to claim neutrality when he is not, in order to speak from a place of authority just to better push his jingoistic desires on those topics. I do not know how you came about that but I would not dwell much on that especially since I also mentioned that none of these people are my relatives neither am I from any of these ethnic groups, to be clear, I am not a Yoruba or Edo indigenous person.
    The fifth paragraph of your thread is a typical example of WP:BADFAITH; I do not know how you came up with those conclusions, but it is laughable and all I perceive is that you are trying to make a point and so you tried bringing up as much details as you could. The comments you made in this paragraph were not specific to the example you gave; you are literally claiming that all my contributions have been exactly of this pattern, which is both not true and a serious bad faith accusation. Looking at the history of the Ehengbuda article, it indicates that since August 2024 there have been several editors who have edited this exact portions you have just brought up as an example of my saying something in the lead of the articles I create, say something else in the body of the article and defend myself with WP:LEADCITE which you indicated that it is a pattern in all my contributions. This is History Of Yoruba's first edit to this page removing these same claims you are talking about, History Of Yoruba went further to add unsourced statements Upon the death of the Owa of Owo, Osogboye departed Benin for Owo, without the Oba's permission after witnessing the hardship of some other tribes that came to Benin for education was going through. The enraged Oba dispatched messengers to retrieve him, but Osogboye declined, and this caused a war between Benin and Owo, which Owo was victorious. This event marked the end of Benin and Owo special relationship, as both has influenced eachother culturally throughout history, the user continued editing but I reverted them. Then came another Wiisstlo user who made just the same edits.
    So, with your usage of this same thing as an example here raises my eyebrows but I usually err on the side of assumption of good faith in situations like this.
    You also seem to have the habit of thinking everyone editing a specific area is biased on way or the other, here is a thread initiated by Watercheetah99 in October 2024. There's also this thread by Watercheetah99 few days later about you.
    If there are issues with an article, what is expected is a thread at the talk page of the article (the same way myself and other productive editors have been interacting and resolving content disputes for a while now), and not a complaint at ANI which is in itself an inappropriate place for such. I do not think I will directly comment on the issues about the Ehengbuda article, there's a talk page and I think that venue should be utilised.
    You claimed that This is just one example out of plenty of misleading ways that Vanderwaalforces bends around Wikipedia policies to push an extremely inflated perception of the Benin/Edo locality how sure are you about that, have you really gone through my contributions and come with this conclusion? I am going to stop here regarding this and quickly say that, the fact that you were reverting or removing sourced claims is what doesn't make sense. FWIW, I see that since then you have been trying to add sources one way or the other when making edits and that is good.
    For my Yoruba POV comment, I said that for reasons I explained here. And I still think that whatever the case may be, views from all perspectives should be reflected on Wikipedia and that Wikipedia should not be in position to determine which perspective is popular or not, especially in this context, and all in the spirit of WP:NPOV.
    Let it be noted here that majority of your comments (they were not assumptions, you were expressing them with certainty) are utter misrepresentation of what the situation really is, and that they are serious failures of WP:GOODFAITH and the spirit of collaboration. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If your defence for the threats and the clear cited examples of policy abuse, is simply denial and that other users also disagree with your articles, then there's not much I can add. You don't get to say I need to be WP:GOODFAITH about anything when you're obviously threatening me.
    Who is supposed to buy your notion that "do not start what you cannot finish" refers to completing an article, when the article is as complete as can be? Or is there a hidden Ogiso list you want to present to us? This is a terribly disingenuous defence, but I expected anything after those threats over my basic compliance with the wiki policy. Sohvyan (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd note that Wikipedia is a collaborative project where all articles can be said to be in varying states of development. Provided an editor isn't leaving an article in a worse state than they begun, editors are explicitly allowed to start to improve an article without "finish"ing these improvements, whatever you mean by that.

    Also while nationalistic and ethnic biased editing is a problem, there are ways to raise concerns that edits or an editor might be excessively biased without needing to say "Yoruba POV trash".

    Also as WP:NPOV says, NPOV explicitly does not mean we just present all perspectives. In fact it requires that we "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view". If one "perspective" is rejected or ignored in most quality RS and only present in one or a few RS, we do not present it equally with the "perspective" that is taken by most RS. If some "view" or "perspective" is extremely rare in RS, sometimes it might not be necessary to mention it at all. You can think what you want, but you're required to obey our policies and guidelines until and unless you get them changed.

    It is important to consider issues like whether the RS is biased towards certain perspectives e.g. if it's largely written from the PoV of one ethic group. Ideally we should focus on the more neutral, academic RS which don't exhibit such bias and instead are based as far as possible on the available evidence. If such sources are limited or can't be found, it gets complicated and we have to be very careful we're not just giving undue prominence to one PoV because there are more writers approaching something with that specific bias. However this doesn't mean we completely the NPOV requirement we don't just present all views equally when they're not treated equally in RS.

    Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    possible serial llm usage in blp space

    [edit]
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    user:Ironfist7 has been rapidly creating, and substantially editing, articles for various artists using what appears to be an llm.

    Lil' Eto, Percy Keith, Mob Figaz, A-Wax, Nyomi Banxxx, X-Raided, and more created or edited on the 5th alone.

    try to follow nearly any citation and it 404s, the text is full of WP:EDITORIALIZING and WP:PUFFERY; this combined with the rate of edits strongly implies use of an llm to synthesize unverifiable facts about living persons. many of their recent articles have been nominated for afd but administrator intervention would likely be for the best here.

    started a discussion in the blp noticeboard and was advised it may be better to take this here instead. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty nine (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Mmm yeah that's bad, blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1284418079"